Mazda CX-3 2015 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.9 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-5 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda CX-3 engine produces 45 HP less power than Mazda CX-5, but torque is 60 NM more than Mazda CX-5. Due to the lower power, Mazda CX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 6.7 | |
|
The Mazda CX-3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda CX-3 consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that by driving the Mazda CX-3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 225 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 44 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 860 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 420'000 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-5 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 3, Mazda 2 | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda CX-5 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Mazda CX-5 2012 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-5 2012 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.67 m | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is smaller. Mazda CX-3 is 27 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-5, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-3 is 12 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 463 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1260 litres | 1620 litres | |
|
Mazda CX-5 has more luggage space. Mazda CX-3 has 113 litres less trunk space than the Mazda CX-5. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-5 (by 360 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-3 is 0.6 metres less than that of the Mazda CX-5, which means Mazda CX-3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`815 | 2`045 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda CX-5 scores higher in safety tests. The Mazda CX-5 scores significantly 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 Mazda CX-5 has serious deffects in 250 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 12 400 | 8800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |