Honda CR-V 2012 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-5 is a more dynamic driving. Honda CR-V and Mazda CX-5 have the same engine power, but Honda CR-V torque is 30 NM less than Mazda CX-5. Honda CR-V reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 4.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda CR-V consumes 2.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Honda CR-V could require 330 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda CR-V consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 1210 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 1360 km on highway | ||
| 770 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| 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: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
|
Honda CR-V has 4x4: Vehicle has automatic four-wheel drive system that sends torque to front wheels under normal conditions. Electronically controlled multi-plate clutch transfers torque to rear axle when wheel slip is detected. The all-wheel drive system constantly interacts with the VSA dynamic stabilization system and electric power steering to provide full vehicle control, good traction and maneuverability in all road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 380'000 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-5 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda Accord | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda CX-7 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.57 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.71 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Honda CR-V is 3 cm longer than the Mazda CX-5, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Honda CR-V is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 589 litres | 505 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1669 litres | 1620 litres | |
|
Honda CR-V has more luggage capacity. Honda CR-V has 84 litres more trunk space than the Mazda CX-5. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Honda CR-V (by 49 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda CR-V is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mazda CX-5, which means Honda CR-V can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`035 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda CX-5 scores higher in safety tests. The Mazda CX-5 scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Mazda CX-5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Honda CR-V has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mazda CX-5, so Mazda CX-5 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 10 000 | 8000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda CR-V has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |