Mazda CX-5 2012 vs Volvo XC60 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 203 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC60 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda CX-5 engine produces 53 HP less power than Volvo XC60, whereas torque is 90 NM less than Volvo XC60. Due to the lower power, Mazda CX-5 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 8.5 | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda CX-5 consumes 1.8 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 270 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 860 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
|
Mazda CX-5 has 4x4: Engine power is automatically (without driver intervention) distributed among the wheels based on conditions using a hydraulic multi-disc clutch, viscous clutch, or similar traction control device. Some systems allow locking of multi-disc clutch manually for permanent all wheel drive. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 350'000 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 | 1 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-3 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo V60 | |
| 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 2012 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 2012 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.54 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 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 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 463 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1620 litres | 1455 litres | |
| Mazda CX-5 has 32 litres less trunk space than the Volvo XC60. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-5 (by 165 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 11.9 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`045 | 2`500 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Mazda CX-5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo XC60 has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Mazda CX-5, so Mazda CX-5 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8800 | 9000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-5 has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |