Mazda CX-3 2014 vs Nissan Qashqai 2014
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 144 HP | |
| Torque: | 208 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.6 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda CX-3 engine produces 6 HP more power than Nissan Qashqai, whereas torque is 8 NM more than Nissan Qashqai. Thanks to more power Mazda CX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 7.3 | |
|
The Mazda CX-3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda CX-3 consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Qashqai, which means that by driving the Mazda CX-3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 150 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 44 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 890 km in combined cycle | |
| Nissan Qashqai gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 300'000 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 Mazda CX-3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 15 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 2 other car models, including Nissan X-Trail, Nissan Serena | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda CX-3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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 | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.60 m | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is smaller. Mazda CX-3 is 10 cm shorter than the Nissan Qashqai, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-3 is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1260 litres | no data | |
|
Nissan Qashqai has more luggage space. Mazda CX-3 has 80 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Qashqai. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-3 is 0.1 metres less than that of the Nissan Qashqai. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`070 | 1`950 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Nissan Qashqai is better rated in child safety tests. The Nissan Qashqai scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Qashqai has serious deffects in 125 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 12 400 | 10 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Nissan Qashqai has
| |