2009 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2010 Ford E-150
To start off, 2010 Ford E-150 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 4,600 cc (4 cylinders), 2010 Ford E-150 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda CX-9 (273 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 102 more horse power than 2010 Ford E-150. (171 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2010 Ford E-150. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2010 Ford E-150 weights approximately 193 kg more than 2009 Mazda CX-9.
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, 2009 Mazda CX-9 (366 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 134 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Ford E-150. (232 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2009 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Ford E-150.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Mazda CX-9 | 2010 Ford E-150 | |
| Make | Mazda | Ford |
| Model | CX-9 | E-150 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2010 |
| Body Type | SUV | Van |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3726 cc | 4600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 273 HP | 171 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 366 Nm | 232 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Vehicle Weight | 1329 kg | 1522 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5080 mm | 4437 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1806 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1730 mm | 1725 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2880 mm | 2619 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 62 L |
