2009 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2005 Mercury Mariner
To start off, 2009 Mazda CX-9 is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Mercury Mariner. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Mercury Mariner would be higher. At 3,727 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Mazda CX-9 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda CX-9 (268 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 115 more horse power than 2005 Mercury Mariner. (153 HP @ 5800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2005 Mercury Mariner.
Because 2005 Mercury Mariner is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2009 Mazda CX-9. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 Mercury Mariner 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, 2009 Mazda CX-9 (269 Nm @ 4250 RPM) has 63 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Mercury Mariner. (206 Nm @ 4250 RPM). This means 2009 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Mercury Mariner.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Mazda CX-9 | 2005 Mercury Mariner | |
Make | Mazda | Mercury |
Model | CX-9 | Mariner |
Year Released | 2009 | 2005 |
Body Type | SUV | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3727 cc | 2261 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 268 HP | 153 HP |
Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 5800 RPM |
Torque | 269 Nm | 206 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4250 RPM | 4250 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4600 mm | 4430 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1790 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1730 mm | 1730 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2340 mm | 2630 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 62 L |