Mazda CX-3 2018 vs Volkswagen T-Roc 2018
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 8.7 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen T-Roc is a more dynamic driving. Mazda CX-3 engine produces 35 HP less power than Volkswagen T-Roc, whereas torque is 70 NM less than Volkswagen T-Roc. Due to the lower power, Mazda CX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.8 | 4.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.5 l/100km | 5.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda CX-3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda CX-3 consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen T-Roc, which means that by driving the Mazda CX-3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda CX-3 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen T-Roc. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 44 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 1120 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 1120 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 930 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen T-Roc 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) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 161 mm (6.3 inches) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.23 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.57 m | |
| Mazda CX-3 is 4 cm longer than the Volkswagen T-Roc, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-3 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 445 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1260 litres | 1290 litres | |
|
Volkswagen T-Roc has more luggage space. 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 Volkswagen T-Roc (by 30 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 Volkswagen T-Roc, which means Mazda CX-3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`823 kg | 2`020 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`360 kg | 1`505 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 463 kg | 515 kg | |
| Mazda CX-3 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 11 procentiem less than Volkswagen T-Roc. Therefore, Volkswagen T-Roc is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Volkswagen T-Roc has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda CX-3 has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Volkswagen T-Roc, so Volkswagen T-Roc quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 16 600 | 16 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Volkswagen T-Roc has
| |