Compare two cars
Compare any two cars and get our Virtual Adviser™ opinion
Marketing
Dimensons & Outlines
Engine
Performance (manual gearbox)
Performance (automatic gearbox)
Expenses
Virtual Adviser's™ opinion
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 4-cylinder, 16-valves 117hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 130hp engine designed by Ford.
SafetyThe 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. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. 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. On the other hand, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Japanese car offers a marginal difference of 5% more metal.
ReliabilityI don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Mazda is significantly less fault-prone, at least on all of the models level. 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. The same official information place Freelander as average reliability-wise, and Tribute is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the British car rank it on average as 4.6, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 5.0 out of 5.
Performance & Fuel economyLand Rover is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1.1 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 170 kilometers per hour, 4km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the Japanese car, averaging around 9.7 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (29 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 7% difference compared to the British 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 British car offers slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. It all continues in the same direction, with Land Rover being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... No mistake, whatever you decide here, but I'd still go for the Mazda. 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.