Chevrolet Trax 2013 vs Mazda CX-5 2015
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.4 - 1.7 | 2.0 - 2.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 - 140 HP | 150 - 192 HP | |
| Torque: | 155 - 300 NM | 208 - 420 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.6 - 12.3 seconds | 7.9 - 10.2 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.5 - 6.5 | 4.6 - 7.3 | |
|
Chevrolet Trax petrol engines consumes on average 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than Mazda CX-5. On average, Chevrolet Trax equipped with diesel engines consume 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.25 m | 4.56 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.68 m | |
|
Chevrolet Trax is smaller. Chevrolet Trax is 31 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-5, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Chevrolet Trax is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 356 litres | 503 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1620 litres | |
|
Mazda CX-5 has more luggage space. Chevrolet Trax has 147 litres less trunk space than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Trax is 0.8 metres less than that of the Mazda CX-5, which means Chevrolet Trax can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`863 | ~ 2`059 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 8400 | 15 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Trax has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |