Mazda 3 2013 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Body: | Hatchback | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Mazda 3 is available only with front wheel drive, while Mazda CX-5 can be equipped with front wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive. | |||
| Engines: | 1.5 - 2.5 | 2.0 - 2.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 - 187 HP | 150 - 192 HP | |
| Torque: | 144 - 380 NM | 210 - 420 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.1 - 13.6 seconds | 7.9 - 10.2 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.1 - 7.6 | 4.6 - 7.3 | |
|
Mazda 3 petrol engines consumes on average 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than Mazda CX-5. On average, Mazda 3 equipped with diesel engines consume 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.47 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.69 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is smaller. Mazda 3 is 7 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-5, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 23 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 505 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1263 litres | 1620 litres | |
|
Mazda CX-5 has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 141 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 357 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.6 metres less than that of the Mazda CX-5, which means Mazda 3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`864 | ~ 2`045 | |
| Safety: | |||
| The Mazda CX-5 scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 7800 | 9600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |