2009 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2013 Cadillac ATS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac ATS is newer by 4 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, both vehicles can yield 268 horse power. So under normal driving conditions, the acceleration of both vehicles should be relatively similar.
Because 2013 Cadillac ATS 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, 2013 Cadillac ATS 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, 2013 Cadillac ATS (353 Nm @ 5500 RPM) has 84 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda CX-9. (269 Nm @ 4250 RPM). This means 2013 Cadillac ATS 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 | 2013 Cadillac ATS | |
| Make | Mazda | Cadillac |
| Model | CX-9 | ATS |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2013 |
| Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
| 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 | 268 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 269 Nm | 353 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4250 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | AWD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4600 mm | 4643 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1805 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1730 mm | 1421 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2340 mm | 2775 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 6.3 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 9.9 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 61 L |
