Last Update: Apr. 06, 2020, 5:51 a.m.
Home >>> >>> BMW Alpina and Mazda CX-9

What is Better BMW Alpina or Mazda CX-9?

Comparing BMW Alpina with Mazda CX-9 may help buyers make it clear which vehicle is more efficient. You can see 7 weighty arguments why BMW Alpina is actually a more effective choice than Mazda CX-9. Anyway, Mazda CX-9 provides 9 weighty pluses that make it great buy instead of BMW Alpina. There are key features of BMW Alpina and Mazda CX-9 which were used while comparing. You may compare two cars and find your personal view about vehicles. BMW did a lot to introduce Alpina as the most efficient vehicle in its class. Though CX-9 is hard to see as a less worthy car, as Mazda gave out a lot of efforts in the development. Which of the models in our match would you choose?

Exterior

BMW Alpina Mazda CX-9

7 reasons to buy BMW Alpina

Engine and transmission
More torque 410 nM vs 366 nM 11% or 44 nM. More torque = faster acceleration.
Performance
Faster acceleration from 0 to 60 mph 7.4 sec. vs 10.10 sec. 2.7 sec.
More top speed 145 mph vs 112 mph 33 mph
Emissions
Less CO2 emissions 97 g/mile vs 192 g/mile 98% or 95 g/mile
Weight and capacity
More minimum boot capacity 460 liters vs 267 liters 42% or 193 liters
Other specs
Less weight 1460 kg vs 2040 kg 40% or 580 kg Weight of the vehicle affects: fuel consumption, acceleration dynamic, braking distance, etc.
Less turning radius 11.1 meters vs 11.40 meters 3% or 0.3 meters

9 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 200 bhp

198 kw. vs 147 kw.

27% or 73 bhp. More power of car = more top speed.
Fuel consumption
Less fuel consumption (Combined cycle) 21.99 mpg vs 47.87 mpg 118% or 25.88 mpg
Less fuel consumption (Highway) 28.99 mpg vs 60.05 mpg 107% or 31.06 mpg
Less fuel consumption (City) 15 mpg vs 35.81 mpg 139% or 20.81 mpg
Weight and capacity
More maximum allowable weight 2712 kg vs 1980 kg 27% or 732 kg
More maximum bearing capacity 672 kg vs 520 kg 23% or 152 kg
More maximum towing weight without brakes 750 kg vs 745 kg 1% or 5 kg

Neutral reasons BMW Alpina vs. Mazda CX-9

Engine and transmission
Engine speed (RPM) 4000 RPM vs 6250 RPM 36% or 2250 less rpms.
Engine capacity 1995 cm3 vs 3726 cm3 46% or 1731 cm3 less
Turbocharging Yes vs Yes
Dimensions
Length 4520 mm vs 5089 mm 11% or 569 mm shorter
Width 1817 mm vs 1936 mm 6% or 119 mm narrower
Height 1413 mm vs 1728 mm 18% or 315 mm lower
Wheels and tires
Wheelbase 2760 mm vs 2875 mm 4% or 115 mm less
Front tires size 235/35 R19 vs 245/50R20
Rear tires size 365/30 R19 vs 245/50R20
*Specs may vary depending on configurations and year of production(taken parameters of last released versions)