Jeep Compass vs Mazda CX-9: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Jeep Compass burns about $2,300 of fuel annually against $2,550 for the Mazda CX-9. That $250 yearly gap compounds to roughly $1,250 over five years and $2,000 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 Jeep Compass leads in both cycles — 24 mpg city and 32 mpg highway against 22 and 28 mpg — so its fuel-efficiency advantage holds whether you commute in traffic or cover long highway miles.

Powertrain choice: the Jeep Compass is recorded with 3 distinct engine configurations (SIDI, 2.4, 2.0), the Mazda CX-9 with 2 (SIDI, 3.7). Across 45 recorded Jeep Compass 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 Jeep Compass is offered with All-Wheel Drive, Front-Wheel Drive, 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 Jeep Compass emits 330 g/mile of CO2 versus 362 g/mile for the Mazda CX-9. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.