Infiniti Q50 2013 vs Mazda CX-3 2014
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Body: | Sedan | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Infiniti Q50 is available with rear wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive, while Mazda CX-3 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, Infiniti Q50 also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 2.0 - 3.7 | 1.5 - 2.0 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 - 405 HP | 105 - 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 - 475 NM | 204 - 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 5.1 - 8.5 seconds | 8.7 - 11.9 seconds | |
| In general, Infiniti Q50 are available with more powerful and dynamic engines than Mazda CX-3. Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.8 - 9.3 | 4.0 - 6.4 | |
|
Infiniti Q50 petrol engines consumes on average 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than Mazda CX-3. On average, Infiniti Q50 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-3. 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.79 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.55 m | |
|
Infiniti Q50 is larger, but lower. Infiniti Q50 is 52 cm longer than the Mazda CX-3, 6 cm wider, while the height of Infiniti Q50 is 10 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 500 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1260 litres | |
|
Infiniti Q50 has more luggage capacity. Infiniti Q50 has 150 litres more trunk space than the Mazda CX-3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Infiniti Q50 is 1.4 metres more than that of the Mazda CX-3, which means Infiniti Q50 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | ~ 1`814 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Infiniti Q50 is better rated in child safety tests. The Infiniti Q50 scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 11 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Infiniti Q50 has
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |