Mitsubishi Outlander 2012 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Hybrid | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Hybrid engines (Mitsubishi Outlander) offer better fuel economy and lower emissions than petrol engines, especially in city driving with frequent stops. Petrol (Mazda CX-5) engines, however, are typically less expensive to buy and maintain, and offer more consistent performance on highways. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 121 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-5 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 29 HP less power than Mazda CX-5, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Mazda CX-5. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 1.9 | 6.7 | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 4.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Outlander over 15,000 km in a year you can save 720 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 2360 km in combined cycle | 860 km in combined cycle | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander 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: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 19 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi ASX, Peugeot 4008 | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-3 | |
| 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-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. | |||
| Mazda CX-5 2012 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-5 2012 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.67 m | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander is 12 cm longer than the Mazda CX-5, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 463 litres | 463 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1620 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 0.6 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`310 | 2`045 | |
| Safety: | |||
| The Mitsubishi Outlander scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Mazda CX-5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Outlander has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Mazda CX-5, so Mazda CX-5 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 9200 | 9400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |