Jeep Compass 2013 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.1 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 163 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.9 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-5 is a more dynamic driving. Jeep Compass engine produces 13 HP more power than Mazda CX-5, but torque is 60 NM less than Mazda CX-5. Despite the higher power, Jeep Compass reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 4.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 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 2 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 300 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Jeep Compass consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 1210 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 1360 km on highway | ||
| 600 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda CX-5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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: | 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: | 4.47 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 8 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-5, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Jeep Compass is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 458 litres | 505 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1620 litres | |
|
Mazda CX-5 has more luggage space. Jeep Compass has 47 litres less trunk space than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| 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): | 2`075 | 2`035 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 7800 | 10 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Jeep Compass has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |