Chevrolet Trax 2013 vs Mazda CX-5 2015
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 155 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.3 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-5 is a more dynamic driving. Chevrolet Trax engine produces 35 HP less power than Mazda CX-5, whereas torque is 55 NM less than Mazda CX-5. Due to the lower power, Chevrolet Trax reaches 100 km/h speed 3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.5 | 6.2 | |
| Chevrolet Trax consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chevrolet Trax could require 45 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 53 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 900 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| Mazda CX-5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Chevrolet Aveo, Chevrolet Cruze | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda CX-5 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda CX-5 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
| Mazda CX-5 2015 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda CX-5 2015 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.25 m | 4.56 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.67 m | |
|
Chevrolet Trax is smaller, but slightly higher. Chevrolet Trax is 31 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-5, 6 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| 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`791 | 1`945 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 8200 | 13 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Trax has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |