Mazda CX-3 2018 vs Suzuki SX4 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 207 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 10.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda CX-3 engine produces 10 HP more power than Suzuki SX4, but torque is 13 NM less than Suzuki SX4. Thanks to more power Mazda CX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 5.7 | |
|
The Suzuki SX4 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda CX-3 consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki SX4, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda CX-3 could require 150 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 44 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 650 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 720 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| Suzuki SX4 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: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 180 mm (7.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Suzuki SX4 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: | 420'000 km | 350'000 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: | 14 years | 11 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 Suzuki Swift, Suzuki Vitara | |
| 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. | |||
| Mazda CX-3 2018 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 2018 2.0 engine Suzuki SX4 2016 1.4 engine: The K14C Boosterjet engine is equipped with a turbocharging system that enhances air intake, providing excellent torque as early as 1,500 RPM. However, the direct injection system contributes to carbon ... More about Suzuki SX4 2016 1.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.30 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.59 m | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is smaller. Mazda CX-3 is 3 cm shorter than the Suzuki SX4, 2 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 | 1269 litres | |
|
Suzuki SX4 has more luggage space. Mazda CX-3 has 80 litres less trunk space than the Suzuki SX4. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Suzuki SX4 (by 9 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 SX4. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`808 | 1`730 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Suzuki SX4 has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 14 000 | 16 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Suzuki SX4 has
| |