Last Update: Apr. 05, 2020, 5:08 a.m.
Home >>> >>> Alfa Romeo Giulietta and Mazda CX-9

What is Better Alfa Romeo Giulietta or Mazda CX-9?

Comparing Alfa Romeo Giulietta with Mazda CX-9 will help buyers make it clear which car is more efficient. We found 5 huge reasons why Alfa Romeo Giulietta is actually a more beneficial purchase than Mazda CX-9. Although Mazda CX-9 also has a lot of pluses: think about 8 ideas why it's better than Alfa Romeo Giulietta. By examining the most important characteristics, we revealed key distinctions of Alfa Romeo Giulietta and Mazda CX-9. You can compare two cars and express your own emotions about models.


Alfa Romeo Giulietta Mazda CX-9

5 reasons to buy Alfa Romeo Giulietta

Faster acceleration from 0 to 60 mph 9.4 sec. vs 10.10 sec. 0.7 sec.
More top speed 121 mph vs 112 mph 9 mph
Less CO2 emissions 93 g/mile vs 192 g/mile 106% or 99 g/mile
Other specs
Less weight 1280 kg vs 2040 kg 59% or 760 kg Weight of the vehicle affects: fuel consumption, acceleration dynamic, braking distance, etc.
Less turning radius 10.9 meters vs 11.40 meters 5% or 0.5 meters

8 reasons to buy Mazda CX-9

Engine and transmission
More cylinders 6 vs 4 2 more cylinders. The more cylinders = the less vibration and the engine runs more smoothly.
More valves per cylinder 16 vs 4 12 more valves per cylinder. The more valves = the better combustion of the fuel.
More engine power

273 bhp vs 120 bhp

198 kw. vs 88 kw.

56% or 153 bhp. More power of car = more top speed.
More torque 366 nM vs 206 nM 44% or 160 nM. More torque = faster acceleration.
Fuel consumption
Less fuel consumption (Combined cycle) 21.99 mpg vs 44.11 mpg 101% or 22.12 mpg
Less fuel consumption (Highway) 28.99 mpg vs 53.27 mpg 84% or 24.28 mpg
Less fuel consumption (City) 15 mpg vs 33.62 mpg 124% or 18.62 mpg
Weight and capacity
More maximum towing weight with brakes 1600 kg vs 1300 kg 19% or 300 kg

Neutral reasons Alfa Romeo Giulietta vs. Mazda CX-9

Engine and transmission
Engine speed (RPM) 5000 RPM vs 6250 RPM 20% or 1250 less rpms.
Engine capacity 1368 cm3 vs 3726 cm3 63% or 2358 cm3 less
Turbocharging Yes vs Yes
Length 4351 mm vs 5089 mm 15% or 738 mm shorter
Width 1798 mm vs 1936 mm 7% or 138 mm narrower
Height 1465 mm vs 1728 mm 15% or 263 mm lower
Wheels and tires
Wheelbase 2634 mm vs 2875 mm 8% or 241 mm less
Front tires size 205/55 R16 vs 245/50R20
Rear tires size 205/55 R16 vs 245/50R20
*Specs may vary depending on configurations and year of production(taken parameters of last released versions)