2009 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2012 Audi TT
To start off, 2012 Audi TT is newer by 3 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 3 more horse power than 2012 Audi TT. (265 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2012 Audi TT.
Because 2012 Audi TT is all wheel drive (AWD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2009 Mazda CX-9. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 Audi TT 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, 2012 Audi TT (349 Nm @ 2500 RPM) has 80 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda CX-9. (269 Nm @ 4250 RPM). This means 2012 Audi TT 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 | 2012 Audi TT | |
| Make | Mazda | Audi |
| Model | CX-9 | TT |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2012 |
| Body Type | SUV | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3727 cc | 2000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 268 HP | 265 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 269 Nm | 349 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4250 RPM | 2500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | AWD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automated manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4600 mm | 4199 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1842 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1730 mm | 1349 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2340 mm | 2469 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 8.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 60 L |
