|
|
VS |
|
This is a new Jeep Cherokee and Mazda CX-5 comparison. After comparing the Jeep with the X-Trail and CR-V it was clear that we needed to revisit the Mazda CX-5 again in un updated ‘series 2’ specification. We are impressed with the Jeep Cherokee and regard as one of the best small SUVs currently available (2015) however it has a ton of competition from other brands. We also like the CX-5 and rate it highly too but not as high as the CRV or the Qashqai for example although many disagree. So we decided to revisit the CX-5 to see how to stacks up against the Cherokee.
Jeep Cherokee Vs Mazda CX-5 exterior: We like the Cherokee for the daring front design despite the conservative by integrated side and rear. We don’t think much of the CX-5 exterior as it is too conservative and even cheap looking. The Cherokee wins this part of the comparison for us.
Jeep Cherokee Vs Mazda CX-5 interior: The Mazda CX-5 has one of the best quality interiors in the class but the Jeep actually matches it. The top end Cherokee Trail-hawk with its great seats and full functioning dash is a more impressive place be in than the top end CX-5. That said the entry level and to mid range models are not too bad either. The Jeep also wins this part of the comparison for us.
Jeep Cherokee Vs Mazda CX-5 engine and technology: Thanks to a revamp of the entire Mazda line up over the last few years the CX-5 has the most fuel efficient and powerful engines, high tech transmission and safety tech. In fact it is the most modern tech in the class from a Japanese brand. The Cherokee has carry over engines and transmission from other models in the range but they are reasonably modern but not as good as the Mazda. The main features that separate the two are that the Cherokee has the options of a real 4WD system and V6 in the top range models where as the CX-5 misses out on both. Depending on what sort of driving you do the choice is only yours to make.
Jeep Cherokee Vs CX-5 drive: No question the CX-5 is the better drive. Better steering feel, handling balance and gearbox combination. We came away from the Jeep Cherokee test drive wondering what could have been.
The conclusion to the Jeep Cherokee vs Mazda CX-5 comparison is conditional. If only Jeep did not have so many past and present issues with everything from service to build quality it would arguably one of the top small SUVs. However it doesn’t (a simple internet search will reveal all) and until Jeep addresses all the concerns it will be an issue to anyone contemplating a a new or even second hand Jeep Cherokee. That said if you could get one that was built on a good day and a dealer who looks after their customers it may work out. In regards to pricing the Jeep Cherokee is currently the cheaper car model on model basis which does help but in this case lower price cannot guarantee or compensate for unknown reliability since it is a new model and past history. Hence the Mazda CX-5 is the better car to buy.
| Jeep Cherokee | Mazda CX-5 |
 |
 |
| Engines | |
| TigerShark MultiAir2 IL4 Cylinder Petrol DOHC EFI 2.4 Litre (2360cc) Claimed 130Kw @ 6400RPM Claimed 232Nm @ 46000PM |
SKYACTIV-G IL4 cylinder Petrol DOHC with VVTi Direct Injection EFI 2.0 Litre (1977cc) Claimed 114kW @ 6000rpm Claimed 200Nm @ 4000rpm |
| Pentastar V6 Cylinder Petrol DOHC EFI VVT 3.2 Litre (3239cc) Claimed 200Kw @ 6500RPM Claimed 316Nm @ 4400RPM |
SKYACTIV-G 2 IL4 cylinder Petrol (91 Octane) DOHC with VVTi Direct Injection EFI 2.5 Litre (2488cc) Claimed 138kW @ 5700rpm Claimed 250Nm @ 4000rpm |
| IL4 Cylinder Diesel Turbo 2.0 Litre (1956cc) Claimed 125Kw @ 000RPM Claimed 350Nm @ 000RPM |
SKYACTIV-D IL4 cylinder Diesel 2.2 Litre (2191cc) Turbo-charged – Direct Injection – Common Rail Claimed 129kW @ 4500rpm Claimed 420Nm @ 2000rpm |
| Weight | |
| Kerb weight FROM 1638Kg Towing capacity up to 1800Kg |
Kerb weight FROM 1475 Kg Towing capacity up to 1500kg |
| Fuel capacity & consumption | |
| 60 litres TigerShark IL4 Petrol: 8.3 litres per 100km Pentastar V6: 10 litres per 100km IL Diesel: litres per 100km |
56 litres – Diesel or Unleaded 91 Octane SKYACTIV-G Petrol 6.4 litres per 100km (Claimed) SKYACTIV-G 2 Petrol 7.4 litres per 100km (Claimed) SKYACTIV-D Diesel 5.7 litres per 100km (Claimed) |
| Other specifications | |
| 9 speed Auto Overall height/width 1631/1859 Overall length/wheelbase 4623/2700 Drive system: AWD or 4WD or Front Only Tyre size: 235-60-17 235-55-18 NCAP safety rating 5/5 |
6 Speed Auto or 6 speed manual transmission Overall height/width 1710/1840 Overall length/wheelbase 4540/2700 4WD system: On demand AWD or 2WD ANCAP safety rating 5/5 Tyre size: 225-65-17 or 225-55-19 |
| Capability | |
| Angle of: (degrees) Trailhawk version only! Approach 29.9 Departure 32.2 Breakover 22.9 Ground clearance (unloaded Trailhawk only) 221 mm Water Fording depth 508mm Max |
Angle of: (degrees) Approach xx Departure xx Breakover xx Ground clearance (unloaded) xxxmm Water Fording depth xxmm Max |
| Performance | |
| – | – |
| Pricing | |
| 2015$27,490 – 45,490 AUD 2014 $33,500 – 47,500 AUD |
2012 $27,990 – 49,420 AUD *Always check with the dealer for up to date pricing, specifications, on-road costs, accessories and specials etc.. everything as usual is subject to change! |