Mitsubishi ASX 2019 vs Mazda CX-3 2018
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 167 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 222 NM | 207 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi ASX engine produces 17 HP more power than Mazda CX-3, whereas torque is 15 NM more than Mazda CX-3. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 6.7 | |
|
The Mazda CX-3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi ASX consumes 1.2 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 180 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 44 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 790 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| Mitsubishi ASX gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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: | 205 mm (8.1 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. | |||
| Mazda CX-3 2018 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 2018 2.0 engine | |||
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: | 400 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1193 litres | 1260 litres | |
| Mitsubishi ASX has 50 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 67 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 1`970 kg | 1`808 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`398 kg | 1`288 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 572 kg | 520 kg | |
| Mitsubishi ASX load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 9 procentiem more than Mazda CX-3. Therefore, Mitsubishi ASX is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| 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 (€): | 14 600 | 14 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi ASX has
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |