Suzuki Vitara 2015 vs Mazda CX-3 2014
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 117 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 156 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Suzuki Vitara engine produces 33 HP less power than Mazda CX-3, whereas torque is 54 NM less than Mazda CX-3. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | no data | |
| 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) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Ground clearance: | 185 mm (7.3 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Suzuki Vitara 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 25 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Suzuki Grand Vitara, Suzuki Swift, Suzuki SX4, Suzuki Liana | 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. Suzuki Vitara might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Suzuki Vitara 2015 1.6 engine: A simple and robust engine, not particularly demanding in terms of fuel quality.
High engine timing chain lifetime.
Tends to increase oil consumption, head gasket failures may occur. 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: | 4.18 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.61 m | 1.55 m | |
| Suzuki Vitara is 10 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-3, 1 cm wider, while the height of Suzuki Vitara is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 375 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
710 litres | 1260 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Suzuki Vitara has 25 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 550 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Suzuki Vitara is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mazda CX-3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`730 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Suzuki Vitara is better rated in child safety tests. The Suzuki Vitara scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Suzuki Vitara has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 12 000 | 11 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Suzuki Vitara has
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |