Mazda CX-7 2009 vs BMW X3 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 173 HP | 184 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.3 seconds | 8.5 seconds | |
|
BMW X3 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda CX-7 engine produces 11 HP less power than BMW X3, but torque is 20 NM more than BMW X3. Due to the lower power, Mazda CX-7 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.5 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The BMW X3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda CX-7 consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda CX-7 could require 285 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda CX-7 consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 69 litres | 67 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 1190 km in combined cycle | |
| 1040 km on highway | 1260 km on highway | ||
| 820 km with real consumption | 900 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW X3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 330'000 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-7 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 18 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3 | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW 1 sērija, BMW X1 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW X3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The BMW X3 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. | |||
| BMW X3 2010 2.0 engine: Because of problems with the timing chain, which tends to stretch at 100,000 km, the BMW N47 engine is sometimes called the worst BMW engine. Replacing the timing chain also requires removing the engine from ... More about BMW X3 2010 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.70 m | 4.65 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.66 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda CX-7 is 5 cm longer than the BMW X3, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-7 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 455 litres | 550 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
774 litres | 1600 litres | |
|
BMW X3 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mazda CX-7 has 95 litres less trunk space than the BMW X3. This could mean that the Mazda CX-7 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in BMW X3 (by 826 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-7 is 0.3 metres less than that of the BMW X3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`430 | 2`300 | |
| Safety: | |||
| BMW X3 scores higher in safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 6200 | 12 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-7 has
|
BMW X3 has
| |