VAZ 2106 1979 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| Body: | Sedan | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 71 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 104 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 17 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-5 is a more dynamic driving. VAZ 2106 engine produces 79 HP less power than Mazda CX-5, whereas torque is 106 NM less than Mazda CX-5. Due to the lower power, VAZ 2106 reaches 100 km/h speed 7.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.9 | 6.2 | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. VAZ 2106 consumes 3.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the VAZ 2106 could require 555 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 39 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 390 km in combined cycle | 900 km in combined cycle | |
| 520 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| Mazda CX-5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda CX-5) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (VAZ 2106) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
| 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: | 4.17 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.61 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.67 m | |
|
VAZ 2106 is smaller. VAZ 2106 is 37 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-5, 23 cm narrower, while the height of VAZ 2106 is 23 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 345 litres | 463 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 1620 litres | |
|
Mazda CX-5 has more luggage space. VAZ 2106 has 118 litres less trunk space than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11.2 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 1`435 kg | 1`945 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 7400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
VAZ 2106 has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |