Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2023 vs Mazda CX-30 2019
| Comparing electrical vehicle (EV) with combustion engine (ICE) one is a complex task, but we are doing our best. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Hybrid | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Hybrid engines (Land Rover Range Rover Evoque) offer better fuel economy and lower emissions than petrol engines, especially in city driving with frequent stops. Petrol (Mazda CX-30) engines, however, are typically less expensive to buy and maintain, and offer more consistent performance on highways. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 249 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 365 NM | 213 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.6 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is more dynamic to drive. Land Rover Range Rover Evoque engine produces 99 HP more power than Mazda CX-30, whereas torque is 152 NM more than Mazda CX-30. Thanks to more power Land Rover Range Rover Evoque reaches 100 km/h speed 2.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 5.6 l/100km | |
| Fuel cost per 100km: | no data | 10.30 € | |
|
Change fuel prices per unit to adjust the calculation to the fuel prices in your country. Petrol€/l | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 67 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Ground clearance: | 212 mm (8.3 inches) | 175 mm (6.9 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Land Rover Range Rover Evoque can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.37 m | 4.40 m | |
| Width: | no data | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.56 m | |
| Trunk capacity: | 591 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1383 litres | 1406 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, The Mazda CX-30 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-30 (by 23 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is 1 metres more than that of the Mazda CX-30, which means Land Rover Range Rover Evoque can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`430 kg | 1`957 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`818 kg | 1`347 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 612 kg | 610 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 43 000 | 21 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
|
Mazda CX-30 has
| |