Land Rover Freelander 2012 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 190 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 420 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.5 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
| Land Rover Freelander engine produces 40 HP more power than Mazda CX-5, whereas torque is 40 NM more than Mazda CX-5. Despite the higher power, Land Rover Freelander reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.0 | 4.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.9 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Freelander consumes 2.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Land Rover Freelander could require 360 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Freelander consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 68 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 970 km in combined cycle | 1210 km in combined cycle | |
| 1190 km on highway | 1360 km on highway | ||
| 760 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: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 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 Land Rover Freelander engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Jaguar XF, Land Rover Discovery Sport | 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. Land Rover Freelander might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Land Rover Freelander 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. | |||
| Land Rover Freelander 2012 2.2 engine: This engine is recognized for its reliability, power, and relatively low fuel consumption, as well as its durability in demanding conditions without frequent failures. However, it is sensitible to oil quality ... More about Land Rover Freelander 2012 2.2 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.50 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.91 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.71 m | |
| Land Rover Freelander is 4 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-5, 7 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Freelander is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 405 litres | 505 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1620 litres | |
|
Mazda CX-5 has more luggage space. Land Rover Freelander has 100 litres less trunk space than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.3 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Freelander is 0.1 metres more than that of the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`505 | 2`035 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 8600 | 8200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Freelander has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |