Mitsubishi Outlander 2013 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 166 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 16 HP more power than Mazda CX-5, whereas torque is 10 NM more than Mazda CX-5. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 6.3 | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 2.4 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 360 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| Mazda CX-5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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. 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 292 litres | 463 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 292 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 463 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1792 litres | 1620 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Outlander (by 172 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`175 | no data | |
| 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
| |