Renault Captur 2012 vs Mazda CX-3 2014
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.9 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Renault Captur engine produces 30 HP less power than Mazda CX-3, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Mazda CX-3. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | no data | |
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 170 mm (6.7 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Renault Captur 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 Renault Captur version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Renault Scenic, Renault Megane, Dacia Duster, Dacia Dokker | 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 2014 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 2014 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.12 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.57 m | 1.55 m | |
| Renault Captur is 15 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-3, 1 cm wider, while the height of Renault Captur is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 377 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1235 litres | 1260 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Renault Captur has 27 litres more trunk space than the Mazda CX-3. The Mazda CX-3 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-3 (by 25 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Captur is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mazda CX-3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`726 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| The Renault Captur scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Captur has serious deffects in 95 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7200 | 11 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Captur has
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |