Mazda CX-3 2015 vs Mitsubishi ASX 2016
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 2.3 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 360 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.1 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
| Mazda CX-3 engine produces 45 HP less power than Mitsubishi ASX, whereas torque is 90 NM less than Mitsubishi ASX. Despite less power, Mazda CX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.0 | 5.8 | |
|
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: | 48 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1200 km in combined cycle | 1030 km in combined cycle | |
| 1260 km on highway | 1200 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) | |
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 180 mm (7.1 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 | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 480'000 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 Mitsubishi ASX engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 3, Mazda 2 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi Outlander, Mitsubishi L 200 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi ASX 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.63 m | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is smaller. Mazda CX-3 is 8 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi ASX, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-3 is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 419 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1260 litres | 1219 litres | |
| Mazda CX-3 has 69 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): | 1`735 | 2`060 | |
| 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 (€): | 11 200 | 11 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Mitsubishi ASX has
| |