Chevrolet Orlando 2011 vs Mazda 5 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.6 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 163 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 360 NM | 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 13.7 seconds | |
|
Chevrolet Orlando is more dynamic to drive. Chevrolet Orlando engine produces 48 HP more power than Mazda 5, whereas torque is 90 NM more than Mazda 5. Thanks to more power Chevrolet Orlando reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 5.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 6.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Orlando consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chevrolet Orlando could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Orlando consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1060 km in combined cycle | 1150 km in combined cycle | |
| 1300 km on highway | 1300 km on highway | ||
| 850 km with real consumption | 980 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 470'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Chevrolet Cruze | Used also on Mazda 3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 5 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.65 m | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.63 m | 1.62 m | |
|
Chevrolet Orlando is larger. Chevrolet Orlando is 7 cm longer than the Mazda 5, 13 cm wider, while the height of Chevrolet Orlando is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 458 litres | 112 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 458 litres | 112 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
458 litres | 1485 litres | |
| In 7-seat version Chevrolet Orlando has more luggage space (by 346 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 5 (by 1027 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.3 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Orlando is 0.7 metres more than that of the Mazda 5, which means Chevrolet Orlando can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`287 | 2`125 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 5000 | 5200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Orlando has
|
Mazda 5 has
| |