Mazda 5 2010 vs Chevrolet Orlando 2011
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 144 HP | 141 HP | |
| Torque: | 180 NM | 176 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.2 seconds | 11.6 seconds | |
| Mazda 5 engine produces 3 HP more power than Chevrolet Orlando, whereas torque is 4 NM more than Chevrolet Orlando. Despite the higher power, Mazda 5 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.3 | 7.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.9 l/100km | 9.4 l/100km | |
|
The Chevrolet Orlando is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 5 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Orlando, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 5 could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 5 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Orlando. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| 600 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Chevrolet Orlando gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 480'000 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 Chevrolet Orlando engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5 | 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. | |||
| Mazda 5 2010 2.0 engine: The engine tends to idle unevenly. Engine problems may also include the thermostat and cooling pump. This engine tends to consume more oil at higher mileages. | |||
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 | 1499 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 Chevrolet Orlando (by 14 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. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`125 | 2`170 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 5200 | 5000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 5 has
|
Chevrolet Orlando has
| |