Mitsubishi Outlander 2012 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander and Mazda CX-5 have the same engine power, the torque is the same for both cars. Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 4.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.8 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 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1110 km in combined cycle | 1210 km in combined cycle | |
| 1270 km on highway | 1360 km on highway | ||
| 840 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: | 480'000 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 Mitsubishi Outlander engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi L 200, Mitsubishi ASX | 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. Mitsubishi Outlander might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.71 m | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander is 12 cm longer than the Mazda CX-5, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 220 litres | 505 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
986 litres | 1620 litres | |
|
Mazda CX-5 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Outlander has 285 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 Mazda CX-5 (by 634 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`170 | 2`035 | |
| 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 | 8800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |