Generic Car Comparison: Mazda CX-5 vs two of its competitors

By Martin Pretorius

Not every soft-roader has to carry a premium badge: there are plenty of very enticing offerings in the mid-sized SUV-Crossover market segment. Let's compare the excellent Mazda CX-5 to two of its strongest opponents.

Much of the attention in the mid-sized SUV market is focused on the premium offerings from Audi, BMW and Mercedes. But those aren't the only worthy contenders in this class – in fact, some of these cars have been around since before the Germans even thought about entering this fight. We pit three of these alternative SUV-Crossovers against each other to see what you can get at the value end of this market segment.

Our baseline vehicle for this comparison is the very well-received Mazda CX-5, fresh from a pretty comprehensive facelift. We selected the entry-level 2.0 Active variant, with the smallest petrol engine, a manual gearbox and front-wheel drive, and the least-generous specification sheet. It goes up against its counterparts from Hyundai (the Tucson 2.0 Premium) and Nissan (the X-Trail 2.0 Visia). Both of the latter have also benefitted from recent facelifts, and their list prices differ by less than R6 000. How do they stack up?

	Mazda CX-5 2.0 Active	Hyundai Tucson 2.0 Premium	Nissan X-Trail 2.0 Visia
Engine size (cyl/size)	4-cyl, 2.0-litre, petrol	4-cyl, 2.0-litre, petrol	4-cyl, 2.0-litre, petrol
Power/Torque	121 kW/210 Nm	115 kW/196 Nm	106 kW/200 Nm
Kerb Weight	1 534 kg	1 559 kg	1 450 kg
Length (mm)	4 550	4 475	4 641
Wheelbase (mm)	2 700	2 670	2 705
Airbag count	6	6	6
Ave Consumption *	6.4 ℓ/100 km	8.9 ℓ/100 km	8.3 ℓ/100 km
Warranty	3 yr/Unlimited km	5 yr/150 000 km	6 yr/150 000 km
Price	R 386 600	R 384 900	R 381 000

*Manufacturer's official figures.

Analysis

It's quite amazing to see how three vehicles from completely unrelated maufacturers could end up being so similar on paper. These ranges all open with normally-aspirated 2.0-litre twin-cam four-cylinder engines, driving the front wheels through 6-speed manual transmissions, with the gap between the most and least powerful cars being all of 15 kW. The Mazda3 is the clear winner in the power stakes, thanks to its high-compression SkyActiv engine, with the Hyundai being 6 kW and 14 Nm short of the Mazda's 121 kW and 210 Nm. The X-Trail brings up the rear with its 106 kW, though it does have a slight torque advantage over the Tucson.

The absolute power outputs only tell part of the story, however, as the Nissan is the lightest of this trio – and by quite a margin, too. It weighs 84 kg less than the Mazda, and a full 109 kg less than the Hyundai. In fact, the Tucson's weight disadvantage is quite difficult to understand, because it's the smallest car here, while the X-Trail is the longest by quite some margin. Theoretically, the Nissan's weight advantage will go quite some way to offset its power deficit, though none of these vehicles can ever be considered to be powerful cars by any measure. Think adequate performance, but unlikely to ever be stimulating.

Quoted fuel consumption figures raise some eyebrows, because the Mazda appears to be miles ahead of both of the others in terms of fuel efficiency. That said, the official average of 6.4 ℓ/100 km would most likely be the stuff of dreams, though it will most likely still return real-world figures around the 8.0 ℓ/100 km mark, going on prior experience with other 2.0 SkyActiv-engined Mazdas.

Comparing their load volumes, the X-Trail makes good use of its added heft to provide the largest boot of these three. Predictably, the more-compact Tucson has the smallest boot, while the CX-5 takes up the middle slot. However, Mazda's engineers managed to find quite a lot of extra luggage space with the CX-5's rear seats folded down, when it provides almost 500 litres more room than the next-best Tucson – although the X-Trail isn't very far behind in this area either.

Equipment levels are largely similar, with all three offering the basic modern conveniences without any futuristic gadgets. 6 airbags and ABS brakes are standard for all three, but the Tucson is a bit stingy with additional safety kit, being the only one to not offer traction- or stability control, or a blind-spot monitor. The CX-5 has one shining advantage over the others, because it's the only one to offer LED headlamps. As far as cabin luxuries go, the Tucson also misses out on the navigation, cruise control, leather upholstery, and sun roofs you'd find in the other two, but perhaps these features will find their way into facelifted Tucsons launching in SA early September. The CX-5 scores even more points with its keyless entry and head-up display – those are upper-class toys, and yet a sub-R400 000 Japanese SUV offers them as standard.

Because safety is of utmost importance, it follows that the Mazda CX-5 simply has to be named the winner here. It's comprehensively equipped with all the latest safety kit (though the X-Trail isn't too far behind), but those active LED headlights simply moves it to the top of this pile. There may not be a premium badge here, but it has plenty of premium features. Add its (claimed) fuel consumption advantage and larger loading area to the equation, and its marginally higher price suddenly seems like a very small penalty to pay.