Subaru Forester 2013 vs Mazda CX-5 2015
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 147 HP | 175 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 NM | 420 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.2 seconds | 9.4 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-5 is a more dynamic driving. Subaru Forester engine produces 28 HP less power than Mazda CX-5, whereas torque is 70 NM less than Mazda CX-5. Due to the lower power, Subaru Forester reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.7 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Subaru Forester is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Subaru Forester consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that by driving the Subaru Forester over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Subaru Forester consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1050 km in combined cycle | 980 km in combined cycle | |
| 1220 km on highway | 1090 km on highway | ||
| 890 km with real consumption | 760 km with real consumption | ||
| Subaru Forester gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 18 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Subaru Outback, Subaru Legacy | Used also on Mazda 6 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Subaru Forester might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda CX-5 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: | 4.60 m | 4.56 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.67 m | |
| Subaru Forester is 4 cm longer than the Mazda CX-5, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Subaru Forester is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 505 litres | 503 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1620 litres | |
| Subaru Forester has 2 litres more trunk space than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru Forester is 1.1 metres less than that of the Mazda CX-5, which means Subaru Forester can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`080 | 2`140 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 16 600 | 10 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Forester has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |