Mazda CX-5 2013 vs Honda CR-V 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 192 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 256 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.9 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-5 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda CX-5 engine produces 42 HP more power than Honda CR-V, but torque is 94 NM less than Honda CR-V. Thanks to more power Mazda CX-5 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 6.8 | |
|
The Honda CR-V is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda CX-5 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda CX-5 could require 75 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| Honda CR-V gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Honda CR-V 2012: Vehicle has automatic four-wheel drive system that sends torque to front wheels under normal conditions. Electronically controlled multi-plate clutch transfers torque to rear axle when wheel slip is detected. The all-wheel drive system constantly interacts with the VSA dynamic stabilization system and electric power steering to provide full vehicle control, good traction and maneuverability in all road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 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: | 12 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda Accord | |
| 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: | 4.54 m | 4.57 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.67 m | 1.69 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda CX-5 is 3 cm shorter than the Honda CR-V, 2 cm wider, while the height of Mazda CX-5 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 403 litres | 589 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1620 litres | 1669 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage space. Mazda CX-5 has 186 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Honda CR-V (by 49 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-5 is 0.6 metres less than that of the Honda CR-V, which means Mazda CX-5 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`075 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda CX-5 scores higher in safety tests, but Honda CR-V is better rated in child safety tests. The Mazda CX-5 scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Mazda CX-5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Honda CR-V has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mazda CX-5, so Mazda CX-5 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 8800 | 11 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-5 has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |