Mitsubishi ASX 2010 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 177 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.1 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-5 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi ASX engine produces 10 HP less power than Mazda CX-5, whereas torque is 33 NM less than Mazda CX-5. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi ASX reaches 100 km/h speed 3.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 6.3 | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi ASX consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi ASX could require 195 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| Mazda CX-5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Lancer | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-3 | |
| 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: | no | yes | |
| 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: | 4.30 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.63 m | 1.67 m | |
|
Mitsubishi ASX is smaller. Mitsubishi ASX is 25 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-5, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi ASX is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 419 litres | 463 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1219 litres | 1620 litres | |
|
Mazda CX-5 has more luggage space. Mitsubishi ASX has 44 litres less trunk space than the Mazda CX-5. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-5 (by 401 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi ASX is 0.6 metres less than that of the Mazda CX-5, which means Mitsubishi ASX can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda CX-5 scores higher in safety tests. The Mazda CX-5 scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Mazda CX-5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi ASX has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mazda CX-5, so Mazda CX-5 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 6000 | 8800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi ASX has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |