Mazda 5 2010 vs Renault Espace 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.7 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Renault Espace is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 5 engine produces 35 HP less power than Renault Espace, whereas torque is 70 NM less than Renault Espace. Due to the lower power, Mazda 5 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.1 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 5 consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Espace, which means that by driving the Mazda 5 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 195 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 5 consumes 1.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Renault Espace. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 83 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1150 km in combined cycle | 1270 km in combined cycle | |
| 1300 km on highway | 1450 km on highway | ||
| 980 km with real consumption | 1030 km with real consumption | ||
| Renault Espace gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 130 mm (5.1 inches) | 175 mm (6.9 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Renault Espace 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. Note, however, that this Renault Espace version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 3 | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Nissan X-Trail, Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Opel Vivaro | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Renault Espace might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Renault Espace 2010 2.0 engine: The engine has a good power to fuel consumption ratio and, with careful maintenance, a long service life. The most common problems with these engines are with the fuel injection system and lubrication. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.59 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.86 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.73 m | |
|
Mazda 5 is smaller. Mazda 5 is 8 cm shorter than the Renault Espace, 11 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 5 is 11 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 112 litres | 291 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 112 litres | 291 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1485 litres | 2860 litres | |
| In 7-seat version Renault Espace has more luggage space (by 179 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Renault Espace (by 1375 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 5 is 0.4 metres less than that of the Renault Espace, which means Mazda 5 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`125 | 2`555 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | low | |
| Mazda 5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Espace has serious deffects in 115 percent more cases than Mazda 5, so Mazda 5 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5200 | 4800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 5 has
|
Renault Espace has
| |