Mitsubishi Outlander 2015 vs Mazda CX-5 2015
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 167 HP | 192 HP | |
| Torque: | 222 NM | 256 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.2 seconds | 7.9 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-5 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 25 HP less power than Mazda CX-5, whereas torque is 34 NM less than Mazda CX-5. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 7.3 | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.4 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 Outlander could require 60 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 790 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
| Ground clearance: | 215 mm (8.5 inches) | 210 mm (8.3 inches) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 440'000 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: | 12 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3 | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda CX-5 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: | 4.70 m | 4.56 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.67 m | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander is 14 cm longer than the Mazda CX-5, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 477 litres | 503 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1640 litres | 1620 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Outlander has 26 litres less trunk space than the Mazda CX-5. This could mean that the Mitsubishi Outlander uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 20 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 1.1 metres less than that of the Mazda CX-5, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`210 | 2`075 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Mazda CX-5 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mitsubishi Outlander, so Mazda CX-5 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 16 600 | 13 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |