Mazda CX-7 2009 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 260 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 232 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-7 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda CX-7 engine produces 90 HP more power than Mitsubishi Outlander, whereas torque is 148 NM more than Mitsubishi Outlander. Thanks to more power Mazda CX-7 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.4 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.6 l/100km | 10.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda CX-7 consumes 2.2 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 330 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda CX-7 consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 69 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 590 km with real consumption | 580 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: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 19 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 3 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Peugeot 4007, Citroen C-Crosser | |
| 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. | |||
| Mazda CX-7 2009 2.3 engine: Although the engine has a chain, its capacity is quite limited. The engine also requires high quality fuel and tends to use more oil at higher mileages. | |||
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): | no data | 2`290 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 5600 | 5000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-7 has
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |