Mazda CX-3 2018 vs Volkswagen T-Roc 2017
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 190 HP | |
| Torque: | 207 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 7.2 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen T-Roc is a more dynamic driving. Mazda CX-3 engine produces 40 HP less power than Volkswagen T-Roc, whereas torque is 113 NM less than Volkswagen T-Roc. Due to the lower power, Mazda CX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 6.7 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 44 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 650 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 720 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 570 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen T-Roc 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) | |
| 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 | 4.23 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.57 m | |
| Mazda CX-3 is 4 cm longer than the Volkswagen T-Roc, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-3 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 445 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1260 litres | 1237 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, This could mean that the Mazda CX-3 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-3 (by 23 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-3 is 0.5 metres less than that of the Volkswagen T-Roc, which means Mazda CX-3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`808 kg | 1`990 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`340 kg | 1`429 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 468 kg | 561 kg | |
| Mazda CX-3 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 20 procentiem less than Volkswagen T-Roc. Therefore, Volkswagen T-Roc is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Volkswagen T-Roc has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda CX-3 has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Volkswagen T-Roc, so Volkswagen T-Roc quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 16 600 | 16 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Volkswagen T-Roc has
| |