Jeep Compass 2011 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.1 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-5 is a more dynamic driving. Jeep Compass engine produces 14 HP less power than Mazda CX-5, whereas torque is 60 NM less than Mazda CX-5. Due to the lower power, Jeep Compass reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.1 | 4.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Jeep Compass consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Jeep Compass could require 225 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Jeep Compass consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 1210 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 1360 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda CX-5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 380'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda CX-7 | |
| 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: | yes | no | |
| The Jeep Compass 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.45 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.66 m | 1.71 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 5 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: | 10.8 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Jeep Compass is 0.4 metres less than that of the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`000 | 2`035 | |
| 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 (€): | 6600 | 8800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Jeep Compass has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |