Mazda CX-5 2015 vs Ford Kuga 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 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: | 175 HP | 182 HP | |
| Torque: | 420 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.4 seconds | 10.1 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-5 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda CX-5 engine produces 7 HP less power than Ford Kuga, but torque is 180 NM more than Ford Kuga. Despite less power, Mazda CX-5 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 10.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda CX-5 consumes 1.5 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 225 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda CX-5 consumes 3.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Kuga. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 1090 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 560 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda CX-5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 300'000 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: | 12 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 6 | 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.56 m | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.69 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 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 503 litres | 456 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1620 litres | 1603 litres | |
|
Mazda CX-5 has more luggage capacity. Mazda CX-5 has 47 litres more trunk space than the Ford Kuga. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-5 (by 17 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.7 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-5 is 0.6 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): | 2`140 | 2`200 | |
| Safety: | 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 | 13 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-5 has
|
Ford Kuga has
| |