Jeep Compass 2011 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
---|---|---|---|
Engines: | 2.0 - 2.4 | 2.0 - 2.5 | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 136 - 170 HP | 150 - 192 HP | |
Torque: | 190 - 320 NM | 210 - 420 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 - 10.7 seconds | 7.9 - 10.2 seconds | |
Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.1 - 8.6 | 4.6 - 7.3 | |
Jeep Compass petrol engines consumes on average 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than Mazda CX-5. On average, Jeep Compass equipped with diesel engines consume 0.4 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! | |||
Dimensions | |||
Length: | 4.45 m | 4.54 m | |
Width: | 1.81 m | 1.84 m | |
Height: | 1.66 m | 1.69 m | |
Jeep Compass is smaller. Jeep Compass is 9 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-5, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Jeep Compass is 2 cm lower. | |||
Trunk capacity: | 328 litres | 505 litres | |
Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1269 litres | 1620 litres | |
Mazda CX-5 has more luggage space. Jeep Compass has 177 litres less trunk space than the Mazda CX-5. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-5 (by 351 litres). | |||
Turning diameter: | 11.3 meters | 11.2 meters | |
The turning circle of the Jeep Compass is 0.1 metres more than that of the Mazda CX-5. | |||
Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`918 | ~ 2`045 | |
Safety: | |||
Mazda CX-5 scores higher in safety tests. The Mazda CX-5 scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
Quality: | no data | above average | |
Average price (€): | 7400 | 9600 | |
Pros and Cons: |
Jeep Compass has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |