Mazda CX-3 2018 vs Suzuki SX4 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 111 HP | |
| Torque: | 207 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda CX-3 engine produces 39 HP more power than Suzuki SX4, whereas torque is 37 NM more than Suzuki SX4. Thanks to more power Mazda CX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 5.0 | |
|
The Suzuki SX4 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda CX-3 consumes 1.7 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 255 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 44 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 650 km in combined cycle | 940 km in combined cycle | |
| 720 km on highway | 1020 km on highway | ||
| Suzuki SX4 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
|
Mazda CX-3 has 4x4: AWD system provides 98% of power to the front under normal conditions and can shift up to 50% of torque to the rear if wheels slip. | |||
| 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. Note, however, that this Suzuki SX4 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. Choose from five 4x4 versions of Suzuki SX4 2016 if off-road driveability is important to you. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 9 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 Baleno, Suzuki Swift | |
| 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. | |||
| 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 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 | |||
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 (€): | 17 000 | 15 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Suzuki SX4 has
| |