BMW X1 2010 vs Mazda CX-5 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Petrol | 2.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 218 HP | 192 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 256 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.9 seconds | 7.9 seconds | |
| BMW X1 engine produces 26 HP more power than Mazda CX-5, whereas torque is 24 NM more than Mazda CX-5. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.3 | 7.3 | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. BMW X1 consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW X1 could require 300 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| Mazda CX-5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
|
BMW X1 has 4x4: BMW xDrive is a proactive all-wheel drive system without a center differential that engages before the vehicle becomes unstable, unnoticed by the driver. Torque is distributed between the axles via an electronically controlled multi-plate clutch located in the transfer case. Most of the time, the clutch is partially locked and power is transferred to both axles in a 40/60 front/rear ratio, but the system is capable of sending 100% of the torque to either axle. At high speeds or when parking, for example, the clutch is disengaged and all power is sent to the rear wheels. DSC (Dynamic Stability Control) also brakes the wheels individually to regain traction and assist in cornering. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Mazda CX-5 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW X5, BMW 7 sērija, BMW 1 sērija | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| BMW X1 2010 3.0 engine: The BMW N52 engine was the first water-cooled engine to feature a composite cylinder block made from a magnesium and aluminum alloy. It was included in Ward’s AutoWorld’s list of the top 10 engines in 2006 and 2007. While it offers many advantages, the ... More about BMW X1 2010 3.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.45 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.67 m | |
|
BMW X1 is smaller. BMW X1 is 9 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-5, 4 cm narrower, while the height of BMW X1 is 13 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 420 litres | 403 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1350 litres | 1620 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, BMW X1 has 17 litres more trunk space than the Mazda CX-5. The Mazda CX-5 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-5 (by 270 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW X1 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mazda CX-5, which means BMW X1 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`180 | 2`075 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Mazda CX-5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW X1 has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Mazda CX-5, so Mazda CX-5 quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 8000 | 8800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW X1 has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |