Mazda CX-3 2015 vs Jeep Wrangler 2007
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 2.8 Diesel | |
| 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: | 105 HP | 177 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 410 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.1 seconds | 10.3 seconds | |
| Mazda CX-3 engine produces 72 HP less power than Jeep Wrangler, whereas torque is 140 NM less than Jeep Wrangler. Despite less power, Mazda CX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.0 | 9.7 | |
|
The Mazda CX-3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda CX-3 consumes 5.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Wrangler, which means that by driving the Mazda CX-3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 855 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 48 litres | 66 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1200 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 1260 km on highway | 800 km on highway | ||
| Mazda CX-3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
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 Jeep Wrangler engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 3, Mazda 2 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Chrysler Grand Voyager, Jeep Cherokee, Dodge Nitro | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Jeep Wrangler might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.22 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.80 m | |
| Mazda CX-3 is 5 cm longer than the Jeep Wrangler, 11 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-3 is 25 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 141 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1260 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda CX-3 has more luggage capacity. Mazda CX-3 has 209 litres more trunk space than the Jeep Wrangler. | |||
| 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 Jeep Wrangler. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`735 | 2`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 11 200 | 22 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Jeep Wrangler has
| |