Mazda CX-30 2019 vs Jaguar E-Pace 2017
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 180 HP | 249 HP | |
| Torque: | 224 NM | 365 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.8 seconds | 7 seconds | |
|
Jaguar E-Pace is a more dynamic driving. Mazda CX-30 engine produces 69 HP less power than Jaguar E-Pace, whereas torque is 141 NM less than Jaguar E-Pace. Due to the lower power, Mazda CX-30 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 7.7 | |
|
The Mazda CX-30 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda CX-30 consumes 2.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jaguar E-Pace, which means that by driving the Mazda CX-30 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 375 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 68 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 1100 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| Mazda CX-30 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 175 mm (6.9 inches) | 204 mm (8 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Jaguar E-Pace can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 3 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Jaguar F-Type, Jaguar XF, Jaguar XE | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Jaguar E-Pace might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.40 m | 4.40 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.98 m | |
| Height: | 1.56 m | 1.65 m | |
| Mazda CX-30 and Jaguar E-Pace are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 1234 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1406 litres | 2577 litres | |
|
Jaguar E-Pace has more luggage space. Mazda CX-30 has 804 litres less trunk space than the Jaguar E-Pace. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Jaguar E-Pace (by 1171 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11.46 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-30 is 0.06 metres less than that of the Jaguar E-Pace. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`965 | 2`400 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 21 800 | 24 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-30 has
|
Jaguar E-Pace has
| |