Mazda CX-3 2018 vs Suzuki Vitara 2018
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 148 HP | 117 HP | |
| Torque: | 195 NM | 151 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
| Mazda CX-3 engine produces 31 HP more power than Suzuki Vitara, whereas torque is 44 NM more than Suzuki Vitara. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 6.0 | |
| Mazda CX-3 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Vitara, which means that by driving the Mazda CX-3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 48 litres | 47 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 24 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 4 other car models, including Suzuki Grand Vitara, Suzuki Swift, Suzuki SX4, Suzuki Liana | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Suzuki Vitara 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 Suzuki Vitara 2018 1.6 engine: A simple and robust engine, not particularly demanding in terms of fuel quality. High engine timing chain lifetime. Tends to increase oil consumption, head gasket failures may occur. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.18 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.61 m | |
| Mazda CX-3 is 10 cm longer than the Suzuki Vitara, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-3 is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 240 litres | 375 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1260 litres | no data | |
|
Suzuki Vitara has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mazda CX-3 has 135 litres less trunk space than the Suzuki Vitara. 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. | |||
| 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 Vitara. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`762 | 1`720 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Suzuki Vitara has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 14 000 | 18 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Suzuki Vitara has
| |