Mazda CX-5 2015 vs Ford Kuga 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.6 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: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.9 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
| Mazda CX-5 and Ford Kuga have the same engine power, but Mazda CX-5 torque is 30 NM less than Ford Kuga. Mazda CX-5 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 7.7 | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda CX-5 consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Kuga, which means that by driving the Mazda CX-5 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 1030 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| Mazda CX-5 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) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 330'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Mazda CX-5 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-3 | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda CX-5 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mazda CX-5 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
| Mazda CX-5 2015 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda CX-5 2015 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.56 m | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.68 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda CX-5 is 3 cm longer than the Ford Kuga, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda CX-5 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 403 litres | 456 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1620 litres | 1568 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda CX-5 has 53 litres less trunk space than the Ford Kuga. This could mean that the Mazda CX-5 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-5 (by 52 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.7 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-5 is 0.7 metres more than that of the Ford Kuga, which means Mazda CX-5 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`985 | 2`250 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Ford Kuga has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda CX-5, so Ford Kuga quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 13 000 | 11 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-5 has
|
Ford Kuga has
| |