Mitsubishi ASX 2019 vs Mazda CX-3 2018
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 117 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 154 NM | 207 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.4 seconds | 8.8 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi ASX engine produces 33 HP less power than Mazda CX-3, whereas torque is 53 NM less than Mazda CX-3. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi ASX reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.1 | 7.0 | |
|
The Mitsubishi ASX is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi ASX consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-3, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi ASX over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 44 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1030 km in combined cycle | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 1260 km on highway | 720 km on highway | ||
| Mitsubishi ASX gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Mazda CX-3 2018: AWD system provides 98% of power to the front under normal conditions and can shift up to 50% of torque to the rear if wheels slip. | |||
| 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. | |||
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: | 14 years | 12 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.37 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.64 m | 1.54 m | |
|
Mitsubishi ASX is larger. Mitsubishi ASX is 9 cm longer than the Mazda CX-3, 5 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi ASX is 11 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 384 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1206 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 54 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`870 | 1`773 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi ASX has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 18 200 | 18 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi ASX has
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |