Mazda 5 2010 vs Chevrolet Orlando 2011
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 360 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.7 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Chevrolet Orlando is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 5 engine produces 48 HP less power than Chevrolet Orlando, whereas torque is 90 NM less than Chevrolet Orlando. Due to the lower power, Mazda 5 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.1 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 5 consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Orlando, which means that by driving the Mazda 5 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 5 consumes 2.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Orlando. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1150 km in combined cycle | 1060 km in combined cycle | |
| 1300 km on highway | 1300 km on highway | ||
| 980 km with real consumption | 760 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 470'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 3 | Used also on Chevrolet Cruze | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 5 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.59 m | 4.65 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.63 m | |
|
Mazda 5 is smaller. Mazda 5 is 7 cm shorter than the Chevrolet Orlando, 13 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 5 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 112 litres | 458 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 112 litres | 458 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1485 litres | 458 litres | |
| In 7-seat version Chevrolet Orlando has more luggage space (by 346 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 5 (by 1027 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 5 is 0.7 metres less than that of the Chevrolet Orlando, which means Mazda 5 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`125 | 2`287 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 5200 | 6200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 5 has
|
Chevrolet Orlando has
| |