Mazda CX-5 2017 vs Volvo XC60 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 175 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 420 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.5 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-5 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda CX-5 engine produces 12 HP more power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Volvo XC60. Thanks to more power Mazda CX-5 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda CX-5 consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60, which means that by driving the Mazda CX-5 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 90 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda CX-5 consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 1090 km in combined cycle | |
| 1090 km on highway | 1320 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo XC60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.55 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Mazda CX-5 is smaller. Mazda CX-5 is 9 cm shorter than the Volvo XC60, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-5 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 506 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1620 litres | 1455 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Mazda CX-5 has 11 litres more trunk space than the Volvo XC60. The Volvo XC60 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-5 (by 165 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-5 is 0.7 metres less than that of the Volvo XC60, which means Mazda CX-5 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`143 | 2`505 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Volvo XC60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda CX-5 has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Volvo XC60, so Volvo XC60 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 27 000 | 16 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-5 has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |