2009 Mazda 5 vs. 2013 Acura RDX
To start off, 2013 Acura RDX is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 Mazda 5. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 Mazda 5 would be higher. At 2,300 cc (4 cylinders), 2013 Acura RDX is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Acura RDX (240 HP @ 6200 RPM) has 87 more horse power than 2009 Mazda 5. (153 HP @ 6500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Acura RDX should accelerate faster than 2009 Mazda 5.
Because 2013 Acura RDX is all wheel drive (AWD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2009 Mazda 5. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2013 Acura RDX 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. Let's talk about torque, 2013 Acura RDX (340 Nm @ 5000 RPM) has 139 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda 5. (201 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2013 Acura RDX will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda 5.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Mazda 5 | 2013 Acura RDX | |
| Make | Mazda | Acura |
| Model | 5 | RDX |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Minivan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2258 cc | 2300 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 153 HP | 240 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 6200 RPM |
| Torque | 201 Nm | 340 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | AWD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 6 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4620 mm | 4660 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1872 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1640 mm | 1678 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2760 mm | 2685 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 8.7 L/100km | 7.3 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 11.2 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 60 L | 60 L |
