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 mpv segment and utilize the same 5-door MPV body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific petrol engine choice they offer. Both the engines are Mazda-engineered . The first one has a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 131hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 126hp one.

The fact that the Mazda 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 mpv segment, which is generally a 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 Korean car offers a marginal difference of 6% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Mazda does have a slight advantage, at least on all of the models level. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Mazda with an average rating of 4.4, and models under the KIA badge with 4.6 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Premacy as average reliability-wise, and Carens is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the Japanese car rank it on average as 3.0 out of 5, exactly the same as the other one.

Mazda is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1.3 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 188 kilometers per hour, 11km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 8.4 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (34 mpg), in combined cycle.

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 Japanese car offers slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. It all continues in the same 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... It's really tough to make a final decision here, but if I'd need to, I'd say 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. Also, you could use the oportunity to find out which car, everything taken into account, would be the perfect choice for you in the eyes of the virtual adviser™, among more than 12.000 different ones in our database.