2009 Jaguar XJ vs. 2005 Mazda 3
To start off, 2009 Jaguar XJ is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Mazda 3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Mazda 3 would be higher. At 4,200 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Jaguar XJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Jaguar XJ (297 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 137 more horse power than 2005 Mazda 3. (160 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Jaguar XJ should accelerate faster than 2005 Mazda 3.
Because 2009 Jaguar XJ is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2009 Jaguar XJ. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 Mazda 3, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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 Jaguar XJ (310 Nm) has 107 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Mazda 3. (203 Nm). This means 2009 Jaguar XJ will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Jaguar XJ | 2005 Mazda 3 | |
| Make | Jaguar | Mazda |
| Model | XJ | 3 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2005 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4200 cc | 2260 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 297 HP | 160 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 310 Nm | 203 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 11.0:1 | 9.7:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4970 mm | 4490 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1950 mm | 1760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1470 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3040 mm | 2650 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.4 L/100km | 7.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 85 L | 55 L |
