Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the suv segment and utilize the same 5-door suv body style and the 4 x 4 wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific petrol engine choice they offer. The first one has a Rover-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 6-cylinder, 24-valves 177hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 153hp engine designed by Mazda.

The fact that the Land Rover got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, isn't really an advantage, taken the poor 3-star rating it received. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. Both vehicles belong to the suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? Furthermore, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the British car offers a marginal difference of 1% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Mazda is significantly less fault-prone, all the models observed together. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Land Rover with an average rating of 3.8, and models under the Mazda badge with 4.4 out of 5. Independent research findings rank Freelander as average reliability-wise, and Tribute is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the British car rank it on average as 5.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.0 out of 5.

Mazda is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.4 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 171 kilometers per hour, 11km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy an obvious choice would be the Japanese car, averaging around 10.4 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (27 mpg), in combined cycle. That's 19% difference compared to the British car!

Mazda appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In my opinion, everything taken into account, the British car offers much better overall protection, which launches it ahead of the other contender. From there things take a different direction, with Mazda offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! It's not difficult to say then that if I'd need to make a choice, it would definitely be the Mazda. In any case that's my personal view, built upon all the data available to me. What should decide here though is the way you feel about the two vehicles, and I hope you'll find my guidelines useful in the process. I suggest you spend two more minutes in order to find out which car, based on your needs and budget, would be picked by the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.