Mazda CX-5 2012 vs Land Rover Freelander 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 420 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 11.7 seconds | |
| Mazda CX-5 and Land Rover Freelander have the same engine power, but Mazda CX-5 torque is 40 NM less than Land Rover Freelander. Mazda CX-5 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.6 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.9 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda CX-5 consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Freelander, which means that by driving the Mazda CX-5 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda CX-5 consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Freelander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 68 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1210 km in combined cycle | 1130 km in combined cycle | |
| 1360 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 810 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda CX-5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 560'000 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 Land Rover Freelander engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda CX-7 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Jaguar XF, Land Rover Discovery Sport | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Land Rover Freelander might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Land Rover Freelander 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. | |||
| Land Rover Freelander 2012 2.2 engine: This engine is recognized for its reliability, power, and relatively low fuel consumption, as well as its durability in demanding conditions without frequent failures. However, it is sensitible to oil quality ... More about Land Rover Freelander 2012 2.2 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.54 m | 4.50 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | no data | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.74 m | |
| Trunk capacity: | 505 litres | 405 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1620 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda CX-5 has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Mazda CX-5 has 100 litres more trunk space than the Land Rover Freelander. The Land Rover Freelander may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 11.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-5 is 0.1 metres less than that of the Land Rover Freelander. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`035 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 8800 | 9600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-5 has
|
Land Rover Freelander has
| |