2009 Mazda 5 vs. 2013 Mini Roadster
To start off, 2013 Mini Roadster 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.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear 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, 2013 Mini Roadster (279 Nm @ 5100 RPM) has 78 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda 5. (201 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2013 Mini Roadster will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda 5. 2009 Mazda 5 has automatic transmission and 2013 Mini Roadster has manual transmission. 2013 Mini Roadster will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2009 Mazda 5 will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Mazda 5 | 2013 Mini Roadster | |
Make | Mazda | Mini |
Model | 5 | Roadster |
Year Released | 2009 | 2013 |
Body Type | Minivan | Roadster |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 153 HP | 0 HP |
Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 201 Nm | 279 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 5100 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed manual |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4620 mm | 3758 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1892 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1640 mm | 1391 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2760 mm | 2467 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 8.7 L/100km | 6 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 11.2 L/100km | 8.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 60 L | 50 L |