Ford Bronco vs Mazda CX-9: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Mazda CX-9 burns about $2,550 of fuel annually against $2,950 for the Ford Bronco. That $400 yearly gap compounds to roughly $2,000 over five years and $3,200 over eight — often more than the price difference between two trims of the same vehicle, and the single largest running-cost line item separating these two.

City and highway economy: the Mazda CX-9 leads in both cycles — 22 mpg city and 28 mpg highway against 20 and 22 mpg — so its fuel-efficiency advantage holds whether you commute in traffic or cover long highway miles.

Powertrain choice: the Ford Bronco is recorded with 2 distinct engine configurations (SIDI & PFI, SIDI), the Mazda CX-9 with 2 (SIDI, 3.7). Across 66 recorded Ford Bronco configurations and 16 for the Mazda CX-9, the wider the engine spread the more the real-world fuel efficiency depends on which version you actually buy, so check the specific model year and drivetrain rather than the headline number.

Drivetrain and class: the Ford Bronco is offered with Part-time 4-Wheel Drive, the Mazda CX-9 with 4-Wheel Drive, Front-Wheel Drive. All-wheel drive typically costs one to two mpg combined against the same vehicle in front- or rear-wheel drive, which is worth remembering when the gap between these two is small. The EPA classes them as Small Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD and Small Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.

Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the Mazda CX-9 emits 362 g/mile of CO2 versus 424 g/mile for the Ford Bronco. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.