Overview

Two significantly similar cars, no doubt about that. Still, each one has something different to offer. Having both cars powered by petrol engines and utilizing the 5-door suv body style within the same 'SUV' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (front for the Volvo and 4 x 4 in the case of the Mazda). Both the engines are Mazda-engineered . The first one has a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 203hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 260hp one.

Safety

The first thing to look into here would be the results from European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) tests performed on the two cars. Good thing is that both vehicles got tested, with the Volvo being a slightly better choice apparently. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. Both vehicles belong to the suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, but it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. On the other hand, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Japanese car offers a marginal difference of 7% more metal.

Reliability

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Mazda does have a slight advantage, when all the models are taken into account. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Volvo with an average rating of 3.2, and models under the Mazda badge with 4.4 out of 5. Independent research findings rank XC60 4% above average, and CX-7 54% below the first one. That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the Swedish car rank it on average as 3.6, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.7 out of 5.

Performance & Fuel economy

Mazda is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.7 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 211 kilometers per hour, 6km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the Swedish car, averaging around 8.5 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (33 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 22% difference compared to the Japanese car.

Verdict

Volvo 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 Swedish car offers slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. From there things take a different direction, with Mazda being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... I believe that, when we take all into account, we have only one winner here - the Volvo. Nevertheless, let's not forget that people have different preferences and needs, so what really counts is your personal feel. I'm only here to help. In case you have two minutes to spare I invite you to define your needs, desires and budget and see which car would be chosen by the virtual adviser™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.