Mazda MX-5 2013 vs Honda CR-V 2012
| Body: | Cabrio | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 126 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 167 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
| Mazda MX-5 engine produces 24 HP less power than Honda CR-V, whereas torque is 23 NM less than Honda CR-V. Despite less power, Mazda MX-5 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.1 | 7.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 9.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda MX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda MX-5 consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V, which means that by driving the Mazda MX-5 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda MX-5 consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 19 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Honda Accord | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Honda CR-V might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Mazda MX-5 2013 1.8 engine: The engine often has unstable idling speeds and problems with the thermostat. Honda CR-V 2012 2.0 engine: This engine is sensitive to both fuel and oil quality. Using low-grade gasoline can quickly damage the catalytic converter and lead to premature failure of the oxygen sensors. Many Honda owners are annoyed ... More about Honda CR-V 2012 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.02 m | 4.57 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.26 m | 1.69 m | |
|
Mazda MX-5 is smaller. Mazda MX-5 is 55 cm shorter than the Honda CR-V, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda MX-5 is 43 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 150 litres | 589 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1669 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage space. Mazda MX-5 has 439 litres less trunk space than the Honda CR-V. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda MX-5 is 1.8 metres less than that of the Honda CR-V, which means Mazda MX-5 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`375 | 2`100 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda MX-5 is better rated in child safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Honda CR-V has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda MX-5 has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Honda CR-V, so Honda CR-V quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | no data | 11 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda MX-5 has
|
Honda CR-V has
| |