Mazda CX-3 2014 vs Suzuki Vitara 2015
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 117 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 156 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 13 seconds | |
| Mazda CX-3 engine produces 33 HP more power than Suzuki Vitara, whereas torque is 54 NM more than Suzuki Vitara. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | no data | 5.7 | |
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 185 mm (7.3 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Suzuki Vitara 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 | 24 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 4 other car models, including Suzuki Grand Vitara, Suzuki Swift, Suzuki SX4, Suzuki Liana | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Suzuki Vitara 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 Suzuki Vitara 2015 1.6 engine: A simple and robust engine, not particularly demanding in terms of fuel quality. High engine timing chain lifetime. Tends to increase oil consumption, head gasket failures may occur. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.18 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.61 m | |
| Mazda CX-3 is 10 cm longer than the Suzuki Vitara, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-3 is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 375 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1260 litres | 710 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda CX-3 has 25 litres less trunk space than the Suzuki Vitara. This could mean that the Mazda CX-3 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-3 (by 550 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-3 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Suzuki Vitara. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`730 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Suzuki Vitara scores higher in safety tests. The Suzuki Vitara scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Suzuki Vitara has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 12 400 | 13 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Suzuki Vitara has
| |