Mitsubishi Xpander 2017 vs Mazda CX-3 2018
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 109 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 207 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Xpander engine produces 41 HP less power than Mazda CX-3, whereas torque is 62 NM less than Mazda CX-3. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 6.7 | |
|
The Mazda CX-3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi Xpander consumes 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 Xpander could require 300 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 44 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 510 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| Mazda CX-3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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 Xpander 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 Xpander version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 310'000 km | 420'000 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-3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 21 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Colt, Smart ForFour | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5 | |
| 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-3 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-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: | 4.48 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.70 m | 1.54 m | |
| Mitsubishi Xpander is 20 cm longer than the Mazda CX-3, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Xpander is 17 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 350 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1260 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Xpander is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mazda CX-3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`808 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 17 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Xpander has
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |