Mazda CX-5 2012 vs Nissan X-Trail 2010
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 2.0 - 2.5 | 2.0 - 2.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 - 192 HP | 150 - 173 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 - 420 NM | 233 - 360 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.9 - 10.2 seconds | 9.8 - 12.5 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.6 - 7.3 | 6.4 - 9.6 | |
|
Mazda CX-5 petrol engines consumes on average 3.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than Nissan X-Trail. On average, Mazda CX-5 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.54 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.70 m | |
| Mazda CX-5 is 9 cm shorter than the Nissan X-Trail, 5 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 505 litres | 603 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1620 litres | 1773 litres | |
|
Nissan X-Trail has more luggage space. Mazda CX-5 has 98 litres less trunk space than the Nissan X-Trail. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan X-Trail (by 153 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-5 is 0.4 metres less than that of the Nissan X-Trail, which means Mazda CX-5 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`045 | ~ 2`146 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 8800 | 8600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-5 has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |