Mitsubishi ASX 2019 vs Mazda CX-3 2018
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 197 NM | 207 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.7 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi ASX and Mazda CX-3 have the same engine power, but Mitsubishi ASX torque is 10 NM less than Mazda CX-3. Mitsubishi ASX reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 6.7 | |
|
The Mazda CX-3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi ASX consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi ASX could require 150 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 44 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 720 km on highway | ||
| Mitsubishi ASX gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
| 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 18 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Outlander, Peugeot 4008 | 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. | |||
| 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`970 | 1`808 | |
| 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 (€): | 18 800 | 18 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi ASX has
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |