2009 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2013 Chevrolet Equinox
To start off, 2013 Chevrolet Equinox 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, 2009 Mazda CX-9 (268 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 88 more horse power than 2013 Chevrolet Equinox. (180 HP @ 6700 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2013 Chevrolet Equinox.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear wheel drive vehicles. 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 36 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Chevrolet Equinox. (233 Nm @ 4900 RPM). This means 2009 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Chevrolet Equinox.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Mazda CX-9 | 2013 Chevrolet Equinox | |
| Make | Mazda | Chevrolet |
| Model | CX-9 | Equinox |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2013 |
| Body Type | SUV | Crossover |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3727 cc | 2400 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 268 HP | 180 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 6700 RPM |
| Torque | 269 Nm | 233 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4250 RPM | 4900 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Flex Fuel |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4600 mm | 4771 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1842 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1730 mm | 1760 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2340 mm | 2857 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 6.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 9.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 71 L |
