Infiniti FX 2012 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infiniti FX is available only with automatic gearbox, whereas Mazda CX-5 has both automatic and manual transmission options. | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Infiniti FX is available only with four wheel (4x4) drive, while Mazda CX-5 can be equipped with front wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Mazda CX-5 also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 3.0 - 5.0 | 2.0 - 2.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 238 - 400 HP | 150 - 192 HP | |
| Torque: | 363 - 550 NM | 210 - 420 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 5.8 - 8.3 seconds | 7.9 - 10.2 seconds | |
| In general, Infiniti FX are available with more powerful and dynamic engines than Mazda CX-5. Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.0 - 13.1 | 4.6 - 7.3 | |
|
Infiniti FX petrol engines consumes on average 6.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than Mazda CX-5. On average, Infiniti FX equipped with diesel engines consume 3.3 litres more 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! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 187 mm (7.4 inches) | 210 - 215 mm (8.3 - 8.5 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda CX-5 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.87 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.93 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.69 m | |
|
Infiniti FX is larger, but lower. Infiniti FX is 33 cm longer than the Mazda CX-5, 9 cm wider, while the height of Infiniti FX is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 376 litres | 505 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1870 litres | 1620 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, This could mean that the Infiniti FX uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Infiniti FX (by 250 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Infiniti FX is 0.5 metres less than that of the Mazda CX-5, which means Infiniti FX can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | ~ 2`448 kg | ~ 2`039 kg | |
| Net weight: | ~ 2`069 kg | ~ 1`500 kg | |
| Load capacity: | ~ 379 kg | ~ 539 kg | |
| Infiniti FX load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 42 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 (€): | 12 000 | 7400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Infiniti FX has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |