2009 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2010 Audi Q7
To start off, 2010 Audi Q7 is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 Mazda CX-9. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 Mazda CX-9 would be higher. At 4,200 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Audi Q7 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Audi Q7 (350 HP @ 6800 RPM) has 77 more horse power than 2009 Mazda CX-9. (273 HP @ 6250 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Audi Q7 should accelerate faster than 2009 Mazda CX-9. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2010 Audi Q7 weights approximately 1269 kg more than 2009 Mazda CX-9. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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, 2010 Audi Q7 (440 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 74 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda CX-9. (366 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2010 Audi Q7 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda CX-9.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Mazda CX-9 | 2010 Audi Q7 | |
| Make | Mazda | Audi |
| Model | CX-9 | Q7 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2010 |
| Body Type | SUV | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3724 cc | 4200 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 273 HP | 350 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 6800 RPM |
| Torque | 366 Nm | 440 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 3500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | AWD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 7 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1191 kg | 2460 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5080 mm | 5088 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1984 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1730 mm | 1737 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2880 mm | 3002 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 11.2 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 18.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 100 L |
