Jeep Compass 2011 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
| Jeep Compass engine produces 20 HP more power than Mazda CX-5, whereas torque is 10 NM more than Mazda CX-5. Despite the higher power, Jeep Compass reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.1 | 6.2 | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Jeep Compass consumes 1.9 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 285 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 900 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| Mazda CX-5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
|
Jeep Compass has 4x4: It can have Freedom Drive I or II - an electronically controlled four-wheel drive system. Normally, the car has front-wheel drive, but if wheel slip is detected, it can automatically send up to 50% power to the rear wheels. The Freedom Drive I system is designed primarily for snow and similar conditions with limited traction. The Freedom Drive II version adds an off-road four-wheel drive mode, traction control, optimized engine and transmission performance for rock crawling, and hill descent control (not in EU editions). | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 360'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Mazda CX-5 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 18 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Jeep Patriot, Dodge Caliber, Dodge Avenger, Chrysler Sebring | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Jeep Compass might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda CX-5 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 | 1.67 m | |
|
Jeep Compass is smaller. Jeep Compass is 9 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-5, 3 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 328 litres | 463 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1269 litres | 1620 litres | |
|
Mazda CX-5 has more luggage space. Jeep Compass has 135 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): | 1`890 | 1`945 | |
| 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 | 9800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Jeep Compass has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |