Chevrolet Trax 2013 vs Mazda CX-5 2015
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.7 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.6 seconds | 9.4 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-5 is a more dynamic driving. Chevrolet Trax engine produces 20 HP less power than Mazda CX-5, whereas torque is 80 NM less than Mazda CX-5. Due to the lower power, Chevrolet Trax reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.5 | 5.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Chevrolet Trax is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Trax consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that by driving the Chevrolet Trax over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Trax consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1150 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 1300 km on highway | 1230 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Mazda CX-5 2015: Engine power is automatically (without driver intervention) distributed among the wheels based on conditions using a hydraulic multi-disc clutch, viscous clutch, or similar traction control device. Some systems allow locking of multi-disc clutch manually for permanent all wheel drive. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.25 m | 4.56 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.71 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 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 356 litres | 503 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
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: | 1`888 kg | 2`110 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`384 kg | 1`480 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 504 kg | 630 kg | |
| Chevrolet Trax load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 25 procentiem less than Mazda CX-5. Therefore, Mazda CX-5 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 5600 | 11 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Trax has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |