Mazda CX-3 2018 vs Audi Q2 2016
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 1.6 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 10.3 seconds | |
|
Audi Q2 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda CX-3 engine produces 1 HP less power than Audi Q2, but torque is 20 NM more than Audi Q2. Due to the lower power, Mazda CX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.8 | 4.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.5 l/100km | 5.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda CX-3 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mazda CX-3 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q2, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda CX-3 could require 60 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda CX-3 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q2. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 44 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 1130 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 1210 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 840 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi Q2 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) | 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) | 147 mm (5.8 inches) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.19 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.51 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda CX-3 is 8 cm longer than the Audi Q2, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-3 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 405 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1260 litres | 1050 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 210 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 Audi Q2, which means Mazda CX-3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`823 kg | 1`870 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`360 kg | 1`345 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 463 kg | 525 kg | |
| Mazda CX-3 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 13 procentiem less than Audi Q2. Therefore, Audi Q2 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Audi Q2 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda CX-3 has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Audi Q2, so Audi Q2 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 16 600 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Audi Q2 has
| |