2009 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2012 Subaru Forester
To start off, 2012 Subaru Forester 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) has 98 more horse power than 2012 Subaru Forester. (170 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2012 Subaru Forester.
Because 2012 Subaru Forester 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 Subaru Forester 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, 2009 Mazda CX-9 (269 Nm @ 4250 RPM) has 33 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Subaru Forester. (236 Nm @ 4100 RPM). This means 2009 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Subaru Forester.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Mazda CX-9 | 2012 Subaru Forester | |
| Make | Mazda | Subaru |
| Model | CX-9 | Forester |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2012 |
| Body Type | SUV | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3727 cc | 2500 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | boxer |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 268 HP | 170 HP |
| Torque | 269 Nm | 236 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4250 RPM | 4100 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | AWD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4600 mm | 4559 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1781 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1730 mm | 1699 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2340 mm | 2616 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 64 L |
