2009 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2010 Ford F-150
To start off, 2010 Ford F-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 5,400 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Ford F-150 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Ford F-150 (310 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 42 more horse power than 2009 Mazda CX-9. (268 HP @ 6250 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Ford F-150 should accelerate faster than 2009 Mazda CX-9.
Because 2010 Ford F-150 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2010 Ford F-150. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Mazda CX-9, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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 Ford F-150 (494 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 225 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda CX-9. (269 Nm @ 4250 RPM). This means 2010 Ford F-150 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 Ford F-150 | |
Make | Mazda | Ford |
Model | CX-9 | F-150 |
Year Released | 2009 | 2010 |
Body Type | SUV | Pickup |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3727 cc | 5400 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 3 valves |
Horse Power | 268 HP | 310 HP |
Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Torque | 269 Nm | 494 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4250 RPM | 3500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Vehicle Length | 4600 mm | 5885 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 2004 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1730 mm | 1887 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2340 mm | 3670 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 10.7 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 16.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 98 L |