Nissan Juke 2014 vs Mazda CX-3 2014
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 214 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Nissan Juke engine produces 64 HP more power than Mazda CX-3, whereas torque is 40 NM more than Mazda CX-3. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | no data | |
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
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: | 16 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Nissan X-Trail, Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Pulsar | 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda CX-3 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. | |||
| Mazda CX-3 2014 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 2014 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.17 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.57 m | 1.55 m | |
| Nissan Juke is 11 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-3, width is practically the same , while the height of Nissan Juke is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 207 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
786 litres | 1260 litres | |
|
Mazda CX-3 has more luggage space. Nissan Juke has 143 litres less trunk space than the Mazda CX-3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-3 (by 474 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`870 | no data | |
| 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 (€): | 8800 | 11 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Juke has
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |