Mazda CX-30 2019 vs Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2018
| Comparing electrical vehicle (EV) with combustion engine (ICE) one is a complex task, but we are doing our best. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Hybrid | |
| Petrol engines (Mazda CX-30) are generally cheaper to purchase and maintain, with simpler mechanics and consistent highway performance. Hybrid (Land Rover Range Rover Evoque) engines, on the other hand, provide significantly better fuel efficiency and lower emissions, especially in urban and stop-and-go traffic conditions. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 180 HP | 300 HP | |
| Torque: | 224 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.8 seconds | 6.6 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is a more dynamic driving. Mazda CX-30 engine produces 120 HP less power than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, whereas torque is 176 NM less than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. Due to the lower power, Mazda CX-30 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Consumption: | 5.2 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
| Fuel cost per 100km: | 9.60 € | no data | |
|
Change fuel prices per unit to adjust the calculation to the fuel prices in your country. Petrol€/l | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 1100 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| Mazda CX-30 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: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 175 mm (6.9 inches) | 212 mm (8.3 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 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 | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 330'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 3 | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Land Rover Defender, Land Rover Range Rover 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.40 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.56 m | 1.65 m | |
| Mazda CX-30 is 2 cm longer than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, 11 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-30 is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 591 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1406 litres | 1383 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda CX-30 has 161 litres less trunk space than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. This could mean that the Mazda CX-30 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-30 (by 23 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-30 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`965 | 2`450 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 21 600 | 25 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-30 has
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
| |