Mazda CX-7 2009 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.3 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 173 HP | 177 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.3 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is a more dynamic driving. Mazda CX-7 engine produces 4 HP less power than Mitsubishi Outlander, but torque is 20 NM more than Mitsubishi Outlander. Due to the lower power, Mazda CX-7 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.5 | 6.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda CX-7 consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda CX-7 could require 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda CX-7 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 69 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 960 km in combined cycle | |
| 1040 km on highway | 1130 km on highway | ||
| 820 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 480'000 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 Mitsubishi Outlander engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mitsubishi L 200, Mitsubishi ASX | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Outlander might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.70 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.68 m | |
|
Mazda CX-7 is larger, but slightly lower. Mazda CX-7 is 3 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Outlander, 7 cm wider, while the height of Mazda CX-7 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 455 litres | 774 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
774 litres | 1691 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mazda CX-7 has 319 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Outlander. 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 Mitsubishi Outlander (by 917 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-7 is 0.8 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means Mazda CX-7 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`430 | 2`170 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 5600 | 5200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |