Mitsubishi ASX 2010 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-5 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi ASX and Mazda CX-5 have the same engine power, but Mitsubishi ASX torque is 80 NM less than Mazda CX-5. Mitsubishi ASX reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.7 | 4.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mitsubishi ASX consumes 1.1 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 165 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mitsubishi ASX consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1100 km in combined cycle | 1210 km in combined cycle | |
| 1280 km on highway | 1360 km on highway | ||
| 920 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 380'000 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-5 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda CX-7 | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.30 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.71 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 10 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 419 litres | 505 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1219 litres | 1620 litres | |
|
Mazda CX-5 has more luggage space. Mitsubishi ASX has 86 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 | 2`035 | |
| 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
| |