Nissan Juke 2019 vs Mazda CX-3 2018
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 117 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 180 NM | 207 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Juke engine produces 33 HP less power than Mazda CX-3, whereas torque is 27 NM less than Mazda CX-3. Due to the lower power, Nissan Juke reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | no data | 6.7 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 44 litres | |
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Mazda CX-3 2018: AWD system provides 98% of power to the front under normal conditions and can shift up to 50% of torque to the rear if wheels slip. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 km | 420'000 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-3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Nissan Micra | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda CX-3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Mazda CX-3 2018 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda CX-3 2018 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.14 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.57 m | 1.54 m | |
| Nissan Juke is 14 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-3, width is practically the same , while the height of Nissan Juke is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 354 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
422 litres | 1260 litres | |
| Nissan Juke has 4 litres more trunk space than the Mazda CX-3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-3 (by 838 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Juke is 0.1 metres more than that of the Mazda CX-3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`700 | 1`808 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Juke has serious deffects in 65 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 18 400 | 17 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |