Mazda CX-3 2014 vs Mitsubishi ASX 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 208 NM | 197 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.6 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda CX-3 and Mitsubishi ASX have the same engine power, but Mazda CX-3 torque is 11 NM more than Mitsubishi ASX. Mazda CX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 8.1 | |
|
The Mazda CX-3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda CX-3 consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi ASX, which means that by driving the Mazda CX-3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 270 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 44 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| Mitsubishi ASX gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 195 mm (7.7 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mitsubishi ASX 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 19 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Outlander, Peugeot 4008 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mazda CX-3 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
| Mazda CX-3 2014 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda CX-3 2014 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.30 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.63 m | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is smaller. Mazda CX-3 is 2 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi ASX, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda CX-3 is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 384 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1260 litres | 1219 litres | |
| Mazda CX-3 has 34 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi ASX. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-3 (by 41 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`070 | 1`970 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi ASX has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 12 400 | 11 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Mitsubishi ASX has
| |