Compare two cars

Compare any two cars and get our Virtual Adviser™ opinion

Car #1
Make
Model
Variant
Engine
Car #2
Make
Model
Variant
Engine

compare selected cars
2017. - 2019.
J - SUV
suv, 5 door
front
Badges
Production
Vehicle class
Body style
Wheel drive
Safety
2015. - 2018.
J - SUV
suv, 5 door
4 x 4

Marketing

Dimensons & Outlines

4122 mm
1778 mm
1556 mm
455 liters
1235 liters
45 liters
Length
Width
Height
Boot (min)
Boot (max)
Fuel tank
4275 mm
1765 mm
1535 mm
350 liters
1260 liters
48 liters
2017 Renault Captur
2015 Mazda CX-3

Engine

Petrol
4 - Inline, 4 valves per cylinder
Turbo
1332 cc
150 hp
250 Nm
Engine
Fuel
Configuration
Aspiration
Displacement
Power
Torque
Petrol
4 - Inline, 4 valves per cylinder
Nat. Asp.
1998 cc
150 hp
207 Nm

Performance (manual gearbox)

manual gearbox - 6 gears
1272 kg
8.2 s
216 km/h
6.8 l/100km
4.5 l/100km
5.4 l/100km
121 g/km
Gearbox type
Vehicle weight
Acc. 0-100
Top speed
Cons. (urban)
Cons. (highway)
Cons. (average)
CO2 emissions
manual gearbox - 6 gears
1310 kg
8.7 s
200 km/h
8.1 l/100km
5.5 l/100km
6.4 l/100km
150 g/km

Performance (automatic gearbox)

dual clutch - 6 gears
1295 kg
9.2 s
216 km/h
6.4 l/100km
4.6 l/100km
5.3 l/100km
118 g/km
Gearbox type
Vehicle weight
Acc. 0-100
Top speed
Cons. (urban)
Cons. (highway)
Cons. (average)
CO2 emissions
automatic - 6 gears
1340 kg
9.6 s
195 km/h
7.8 l/100km
5.5 l/100km
6.3 l/100km
146 g/km

Expenses

11800 EUR
Price from
13200 EUR

Virtual Adviser's™ opinion

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 Renault and 4 x 4 in the case of the Mazda). The first one has a Nissan-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 150hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 150hp engine designed by Mazda.

Safety

A starting point here would be to take a look at the results from European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) tests which were performed on both of the cars, with the Renault being a slightly better choice apparently. 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, 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 3% more metal.

Reliability

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that both brands display similar results in faults and breakdowns, all the models observed together. These are the results of an independent reasearch, while our visitors describe reliability of Renault with an average rating of 4.1, and models under the Mazda badge with 4.4 out of 5. Unfortunatelly, I don't have enough insight that would allow me to comment in more details on the specific models level. That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the French car rank it on average as 3.0 out of 5, exactly the same as the other one.

Performance & Fuel economy

Renault is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.5 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 216 kilometers per hour, 16km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the French car, averaging around 5.4 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (52 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 19% difference compared to the Japanese car.


Verdict

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 French car offers slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. It all continues in the same direction, with Renault offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but Renault. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. 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, among more than 12.000 different ones in our database.

Check a car by its VIN number

Follow us

AutoManiac Instagram

AutoManiac Facebook

AutoManiac database currently covers:

47worldwide automotive brands
1.565different vehicle models
2.275engines
14.080specific cars