Mazda CX-3 2018 vs Mitsubishi ASX 2019
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 197 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 11.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda CX-3 engine produces 35 HP less power than Mitsubishi ASX, but torque is 73 NM more than Mitsubishi ASX. Despite less power, Mazda CX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.9 | 7.7 | |
|
The Mazda CX-3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda CX-3 consumes 2.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi ASX, which means that by driving the Mazda CX-3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 420 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 48 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 970 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 1020 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| Mazda CX-3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 190 mm (7.5 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mitsubishi ASX 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 | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 19 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Outlander, Peugeot 4008 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi ASX 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.64 m | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is smaller. Mazda CX-3 is 9 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi ASX, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-3 is 11 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 384 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1260 litres | 1206 litres | |
| Mazda CX-3 has 34 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi ASX. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-3 (by 54 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`780 | 1`970 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi ASX has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 17 000 | 15 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Mitsubishi ASX has
| |