Compare two cars
Compare any two cars and get our Virtual Adviser™ opinion
Dimensons & Volumes
Performance (manual gearbox)
Performance (automatic gearbox)
Virtual Adviser's™ opinion
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 (4 x 4 for the Mazda and front in the case of the Volvo). Both the engines are Mazda-engineered . The first one has a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 260hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 240hp one.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 Volvo 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 that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. Furthermore, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Japanese car offers a marginal difference of 6% more metal.Reliability
I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Mazda does have a slight advantage, when all the models are taken into account. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Mazda, as well as Volvo, with the same average rating of 4.5 out of 5. The same official information place CX-7 50% below average, and XC60 54% above the first one. Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the Japanese car rank it on average as 4.7, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.3 out of 5.Performance & Fuel economy
Volvo is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.1 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 210 kilometers per hour, 1km/h less 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.
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. It all continues in the same direction, with Volvo 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 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. 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 more than 12.000 different ones in our database.