Land Rover Freelander 2012 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 190 HP | 175 HP | |
| Torque: | 420 NM | 420 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.5 seconds | 9.4 seconds | |
| Land Rover Freelander engine produces 15 HP more power than Mazda CX-5, the torque is the same for both cars. Despite the higher power, Land Rover Freelander reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.0 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.9 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Freelander consumes 1.5 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 225 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Freelander consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 68 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 970 km in combined cycle | 1050 km in combined cycle | |
| 1190 km on highway | 1180 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 350'000 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 | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Jaguar XF, Land Rover Discovery Sport | Used also on Mazda 6 | |
| 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. | |||
| 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`120 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 9600 | 8800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Freelander has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |