Mazda CX-30 2019 vs Skoda Karoq 2017
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 180 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 224 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.8 seconds | 8.4 seconds | |
|
Skoda Karoq is a more dynamic driving. Mazda CX-30 engine produces 30 HP more power than Skoda Karoq, but torque is 26 NM less than Skoda Karoq. Despite the higher power, Mazda CX-30 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 5.1 | |
| Mazda CX-30 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Karoq, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda CX-30 could require 15 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 980 km in combined cycle | |
| 1100 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 175 mm (6.9 inches) | 176 mm (6.9 inches) | |
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: | 6 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 3 | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Skoda Octavia, Audi A3, Skoda Superb, Skoda Scala, Audi A1, Audi Q3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Skoda Karoq might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Skoda Karoq 2017 1.5 engine: The engine is praised for being both flexible and torquey, delivering impressive performance for its horsepower rating. It is also remarkably fuel-efficient. However, the engine is very demanding when it comes ... More about Skoda Karoq 2017 1.5 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.40 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.56 m | 1.61 m | |
| Mazda CX-30 is 1 cm longer than the Skoda Karoq, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-30 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 521 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1406 litres | 1630 litres | |
|
Skoda Karoq has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mazda CX-30 has 91 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Karoq. 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 Skoda Karoq (by 224 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-30 is 0.5 metres more than that of the Skoda Karoq, which means Mazda CX-30 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`965 | 1`915 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 22 000 | 18 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-30 has
|
Skoda Karoq has
| |