Mazda CX-7 2009 vs BMW 5 series 2011
| Body: | Crossover / SUV | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 173 HP | 218 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 450 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.3 seconds | 7 seconds | |
|
BMW 5 series is a more dynamic driving. Mazda CX-7 engine produces 45 HP less power than BMW 5 series, whereas torque is 50 NM less than BMW 5 series. Due to the lower power, Mazda CX-7 reaches 100 km/h speed 4.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.5 | 5.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 5 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda CX-7 consumes 2.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 5 series, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda CX-7 could require 360 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 5 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 69 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 1370 km in combined cycle | |
| 1040 km on highway | 1520 km on highway | ||
| 820 km with real consumption | 940 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW 5 series 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 | 280'000 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 | 17 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 3 sērija, BMW X5, 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 5 series might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The BMW 5 series 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.70 m | 4.90 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 1.86 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.46 m | |
| Mazda CX-7 is 20 cm shorter than the BMW 5 series, 1 cm wider, while the height of Mazda CX-7 is 18 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 455 litres | 520 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
774 litres | no data | |
|
BMW 5 series has more luggage space. Mazda CX-7 has 65 litres less trunk space than the BMW 5 series. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-7 is 0.5 metres less than that of the BMW 5 series, which means Mazda CX-7 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`430 | 2`320 | |
| Safety: | |||
| BMW 5 series scores higher in safety tests. The BMW 5 series scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 6400 | 12 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-7 has
|
BMW 5 sērija has
| |