2009 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2011 Volvo XC90
To start off, 2011 Volvo XC90 is newer by 2 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 28 more horse power than 2011 Volvo XC90. (240 HP @ 6200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2011 Volvo XC90.
Because 2011 Volvo XC90 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, 2011 Volvo XC90 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, 2011 Volvo XC90 (320 Nm @ 3200 RPM) has 51 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda CX-9. (269 Nm @ 4250 RPM). This means 2011 Volvo XC90 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 | 2011 Volvo XC90 | |
| Make | Mazda | Volvo |
| Model | CX-9 | XC90 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2011 |
| Body Type | SUV | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3727 cc | 3200 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 268 HP | 240 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 6200 RPM |
| Torque | 269 Nm | 320 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4250 RPM | 3200 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4600 mm | 4808 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1897 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1730 mm | 1783 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2340 mm | 2860 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 10.7 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 80 L |
