2009 Jeep Compass vs. 2006 Mazda 3
To start off, 2009 Jeep Compass is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Mazda 3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Mazda 3 would be higher. At 2,360 cc (4 cylinders), 2009 Jeep Compass is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Jeep Compass weights approximately 153 kg more than 2006 Mazda 3.
Because 2009 Jeep Compass is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2006 Mazda 3. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Jeep Compass will offer significantly more control. 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Jeep Compass | 2006 Mazda 3 | |
| Make | Jeep | Mazda |
| Model | Compass | 3 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2006 |
| Body Type | Crossover | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2360 cc | 1598 cc |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 172 HP | 0 HP |
| Engine Bore Size | 88 mm | 78 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 97 mm | 83.6 mm |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1393 kg | 1240 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4410 mm | 4500 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1660 mm | 1470 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2640 mm | 2650 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 10 L/100km | 8.9 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 51 L | 55 L |
