2009 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2010 Hummer H3
To start off, 2010 Hummer H3 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 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 29 more horse power than 2010 Hummer H3. (239 HP @ 5800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2010 Hummer H3.
Because 2010 Hummer H3 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, 2010 Hummer H3 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, 2010 Hummer H3 (327 Nm @ 4600 RPM) has 58 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda CX-9. (269 Nm @ 4250 RPM). This means 2010 Hummer H3 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 Hummer H3 | |
| Make | Mazda | Hummer |
| Model | CX-9 | H3 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2010 |
| Body Type | SUV | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3727 cc | 3653 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 5 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 268 HP | 239 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 5800 RPM |
| Torque | 269 Nm | 327 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4250 RPM | 4600 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 | 4770 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 2170 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1730 mm | 1870 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2340 mm | 2850 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 10.7 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 16.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 87 L |
