Mazda 3 2013 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| 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: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
| Mazda 3 and Mazda CX-5 have the same engine power, the torque is the same for both cars. Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.2 | 6.3 | |
| Mazda 3 consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| Mazda CX-5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 13 years | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.47 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.67 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is smaller. Mazda 3 is 8 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-5, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 22 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 463 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1263 litres | 1620 litres | |
|
Mazda CX-5 has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 99 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`835 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| The Mazda CX-5 scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Mazda CX-5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mazda CX-5, so Mazda CX-5 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7000 | 8800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |