Mazda CX-3 2018 vs Mitsubishi Xpander 2017
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Mazda CX-3) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Mitsubishi Xpander) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 109 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Mazda CX-3 engine produces 6 HP more power than Mitsubishi Xpander, whereas torque is 125 NM more than Mitsubishi Xpander. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.8 | 8.7 | |
|
The Mazda CX-3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda CX-3 consumes 3.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Xpander, which means that by driving the Mazda CX-3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 585 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 44 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 510 km in combined cycle | |
| Mazda CX-3 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) | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mitsubishi Xpander 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. Note, however, that this Mitsubishi Xpander version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 360'000 km | 310'000 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 Mazda CX-3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 21 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Colt, Smart ForFour | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Xpander 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 | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.70 m | |
| Mazda CX-3 is 20 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Xpander, 2 cm wider, while the height of Mazda CX-3 is 17 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 5 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 350 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1260 litres | no data | |
| 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 Mitsubishi Xpander. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`823 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 14 000 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Mitsubishi Xpander has
| |