Mazda CX-3 2018 vs Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 9.6 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is a more dynamic driving. Mazda CX-3 engine produces 35 HP less power than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, whereas torque is 130 NM less than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. Due to the lower power, Mazda CX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.9 | no data | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 48 litres | 60 litres | |
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 360'000 km | 560'000 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 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Land Rover Freelander, Jaguar XF, Land Rover Discovery Sport | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Land Rover Range Rover Evoque might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2013 2.2 engine: This engine is recognized for its reliability, power, and relatively low fuel consumption, as well as its durability in demanding conditions without frequent failures. However, it is sensitible to oil quality ... More about Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2013 2.2 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.61 m | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is smaller. Mazda CX-3 is 8 cm shorter than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, 13 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-3 is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 550 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1260 litres | no data | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has more luggage space. Mazda CX-3 has 200 litres less trunk space than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-3 is 0.7 metres less than that of the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, which means Mazda CX-3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`780 | 2`350 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 17 000 | 23 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
| |