Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2013 vs Mazda CX-30 2019
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 240 HP | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 224 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.6 seconds | 8.8 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is more dynamic to drive. Land Rover Range Rover Evoque engine produces 60 HP more power than Mazda CX-30, whereas torque is 116 NM more than Mazda CX-30. Thanks to more power Land Rover Range Rover Evoque reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | no data | 5.2 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 51 litres | |
| 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) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 km | 350'000 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-30 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Land Rover Freelander, Land Rover Discovery Sport, Jaguar XJ, Jaguar XF | Used also on Mazda 3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Land Rover Range Rover Evoque might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda CX-30 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: | 4.36 m | 4.40 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.61 m | 1.56 m | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is 4 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-30, 10 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 550 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1406 litres | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has 120 litres more trunk space than the Mazda CX-30. The Mazda CX-30 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.3 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is 0.1 metres less than that of the Mazda CX-30. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`350 | 1`965 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 18 800 | 21 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
|
Mazda CX-30 has
| |