2009 Chrysler Aspen vs. 2005 Mazda RX-8
To start off, 2009 Chrysler Aspen is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Mazda RX-8. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Mazda RX-8 would be higher. At 4,701 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Chrysler Aspen is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Chrysler Aspen (299 HP @ 5650 RPM) has 102 more horse power than 2005 Mazda RX-8. (197 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Chrysler Aspen should accelerate faster than 2005 Mazda RX-8.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2009 Chrysler Aspen (330 Nm @ 3950 RPM) has 108 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Mazda RX-8. (222 Nm @ 5500 RPM). This means 2009 Chrysler Aspen will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Mazda RX-8.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Chrysler Aspen | 2005 Mazda RX-8 | |
| Make | Chrysler | Mazda |
| Model | Aspen | RX-8 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2005 |
| Body Type | SUV | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4701 cc | 1311 cc |
| Engine Type | V | dual-disk rotary |
| Horse Power | 299 HP | 197 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5650 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 330 Nm | 222 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3950 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.0:1 | 10.0:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 8 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4290 mm | 4430 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1780 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1890 mm | 1350 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3030 mm | 2680 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 12.4 L/100km | 10 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 13.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 57 L | 60 L |
