 |
Although seen from top bottom,
Toyota RAV4 (right) has much to do .. |
Toyota RAV4 2.0 D-4D 4x2 Life 124 against Mazda CX-5 2.2 SKYACTIV-D 150 4x2 Elegance (Made in Japan).
Both born in the land of the Rising Sun, the RAV4 and CX-5 clash with violence of suicide bombers. In the field of two-wheel drive SUV, everyone has what it takes to arguments appeal to fans of the genre. Especially the CX-5..
Lighter, less expensive, but still higher on legs and with a soft look adventurer, two-wheel drive SUVs are booming and are gradually replacing the minivan. The arrival of a new installment of the RAV4, a major leader in the category, is a small event in itself. It was high time, its predecessor is definitely more at. Unique roof to tires, the RAV4 is elongated (20 cm or 4.57 m) compared to its predecessor. The external spare wheel is now replaced by a spare wheel, stored in the boot floor, while the old back door becomes an electric tailgate opening. Although a slow process, but a real practicality and a "classy" side which deprives the CX-5. The same size, it seems a little less sophisticated. However, it has an endowment of origin also very complete. More traditional but very well done, inside Mazda is functional, equipped with many storage (like the RAV4) and well positioned, in the image of the center armrest that contains auxiliary and USB, with a small removable tray ask for your smartphone. Clean, convenient and better thought Toyota outlets, located in front of the gear lever with the wire apparent connection.
 |
The interior of RAV4 is neat with its low
dashboard dressed |
Toyota RAV4 2.0 D-4D 4x2 Life 124
Benefits
Neat and spacious interior
Large chest
Price-equipment ratio studied
Pitfalls of
Suspensions sometimes hopping
Diesel and vibrant sound
Too long braking distances
Rather clumsy frame
Mazda CX-5 SKYACTIV-D 2.2 150 4x2 Elegance
Benefits
Compromise between comfort and performance
Diesel performance and sober
Successful soundproofing
Pitfalls of
Diameter average steering
Poor braking distances
Spare unavailable
The interior of the RAV4, it is larger and more original. A great driver (1.90 m) will find more distance, while certainly a little legroom on board the CX-5. Mazda Toyota as well treat their rear passengers benefit from well-designed files, generous space, with the possibility of accommodating his feet under the front seats. Only one installed at the center will support the transmission tunnel. Side modularity, they are marked in the pants. Each offers a rear seating system to receive erasing files and form a flat floor in the rear seats or operated via zippers in the vault. The only difference, the RAV4 offers a 1/3-2/3 seat when the CX-5 offers three independent records. However, the maximum capacity of the trunk Toyota is more generous. If the values are the same as tablets (380 dm3 is already good) Mazda accepts "only" 1100 dm3 maximum when Toyota climbs to 1,600 dm3. The movers will make their choice quickly.
 |
Despite the benefits can not be more honest,
the RAV4 must bow deva ... |
Bulky, afflicted with poor rear visibility and turning radius means (especially the CX-5), our two SUV limit the damage in the city through small devices such as parking aids (a rearview camera for RAV4), the electrically folding exterior mirrors, and especially their diesel a pleasing elasticity, equipped with a Stop & Start fairly well managed. The one and the other of the four-cylinder reveal a beautiful availability at very low revs, without scolding too. In this regard, the 2.2 Mazda is more pleasant, despite a moderately progressive clutch. The diesel is too audible sound and vibration are noticeable at idle, but it remains more discreet than 2.0 RAV4. Although not dramatic, the Toyota diesel is more sound and vibrant. The suspension is also too firm over bumps at low speeds addressed. It is, obviously, less suspended the CX-5 best filter irregularities and brings closer to that of a sedan than a 4x4 support.
 |
Beautiful space also at the back of CX-5,
where you can enjoy a good comfort |
This is also true on the road where the SUV Mazda "removal" simply the Toyota. The latter is more clumsy, takes too roll and do not like to be rushed, otherwise trigger the slip on an early slip of the front wheels. Nothing dangerous, but significantly below your CX-5. The focus was clearly on comfort at Toyota, a good level road. But the RAV4 is sometimes hopping on the highway where, in addition, the diesel is forgotten at a steady speed (less on acceleration). In short, it is better to roll smoothly, that rush the RAV4 because then it reveals a more pleasing face and some efficiency to the point that we forget regulatory speeds. But then take the wheel of the Mazda highlights the superiority of its chassis. Precise steering, low body roll, although granted suspensions and filter out the bumps, good stability and low body movements, the CX-5 sets the bar high. Will enjoy the torque and 150 hp of the 2.2 diesel in good shape. Overtaking is done much more easily than the 124 hp of the RAV4, and again as the accelerations are incommensurate.
 |
CX-5 has a dynamism that can rival envy,
while remaining ... |
And where the Toyota withdraws 2.0 (barely beyond 4000 r / min), the four-cylinder Mazda continues to rise. Its maximum power is also delivered at 4500 r / min and that of the RAV4 3600 r / min. In short, it would have been better to compare with the Toyota 2.2 D-4D 150 hp but ... it is no longer available in two wheel drive. Add to that the fact that Mazda consumes just 0.3 l/100 km on average more than the Toyota, it is a bit more comfortable suspension in town and on the road, and it dominates better wind noise or rolling (though they remain acceptable aboard RAV4) and you get a very clear victory in the CX-5, unless given importance to the maximum capacity of the trunk. One last important point: these SUVs are bad students in braking. With respectively 41 m and 68 m to stop 100 and 130 km / h, the CX-5 is already below the average. As for the RAV4, which gets 43 and 72 m, he puts the dunce cap this game. Their air rises is probably largely responsible since they both opted for the Japanese manufacturer Yokohama Geolander and obviously of questionable effectiveness.
No comments:
Post a Comment