2004 GMC Safari vs. 2009 Mazda 5
To start off, 2009 Mazda 5 is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 GMC Safari. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 GMC Safari would be higher. At 4,294 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 GMC Safari is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 GMC Safari (191 HP) has 38 more horse power than 2009 Mazda 5. (153 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2004 GMC Safari should accelerate faster than 2009 Mazda 5.
Because 2004 GMC Safari is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2004 GMC Safari. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Mazda 5, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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, 2004 GMC Safari (339 Nm) has 138 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda 5. (201 Nm). This means 2004 GMC Safari will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda 5.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 GMC Safari | 2009 Mazda 5 | |
| Make | GMC | Mazda |
| Model | Safari | 5 |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Van | Minivan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4294 cc | 2260 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 191 HP | 153 HP |
| Torque | 339 Nm | 201 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.2:1 | 10.8:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 6 seats |
| Number of Doors | 3 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4830 mm | 4620 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1980 mm | 1760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1910 mm | 1640 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2830 mm | 2760 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.2 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 102 L | 60 L |
