Mitsubishi ASX 2016 vs Mazda CX-3 2014
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 117 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 154 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.4 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Mitsubishi ASX engine produces 33 HP less power than Mazda CX-3, whereas torque is 56 NM less than Mazda CX-3. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.1 | no data | |
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 190 mm (7.5 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mitsubishi ASX can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Mitsubishi ASX version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. Choose from three 4x4 versions of Mitsubishi ASX 2016 if off-road driveability is important to you. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 420'000 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-3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda CX-3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda CX-3 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-3 2014 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-3 2014 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.30 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.63 m | 1.55 m | |
|
Mitsubishi ASX is larger. Mitsubishi ASX is 2 cm longer than the Mazda CX-3, width is practically the same , while the height of Mitsubishi ASX is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 384 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1219 litres | 1260 litres | |
| Mitsubishi ASX has 34 litres more trunk space than the Mazda CX-3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-3 (by 41 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`870 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi ASX has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 000 | 11 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi ASX has
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |