Mazda CX-80 vs Volvo XC60 – Suorituskyky, toimintamatka ja kulutus vertailussa

The automotive landscape is evolving rapidly, with consumer preferences shifting towards SUVs that embody both luxury and practicality. In this comprehensive comparison, we take a closer look at two remarkable contenders: the Mazda CX-80 and the Volvo XC60. Both vehicles offer unique features, state-of-the-art technologies, and impressive performance metrics, making them prime examples of modern automotive engineering.

Design and Dimensions

The Mazda CX-80 is a larger SUV, measuring 4995 mm in length and 1890 mm in width, which translates to a more spacious interior, capable of accommodating up to seven passengers. Its bold and elegant design language reflects Mazda's Kodo design philosophy, making it a head-turner on the road.

On the other hand, the Volvo XC60 presents a more compact profile, with a length of 4688 mm and a width of 1902 mm, ideal for urban environments while still exuding an air of sophistication. Though it seats five, the XC60’s premium materials and minimalist Scandinavian design make it a luxury unto itself.

Engine Options and Performance

Both vehicles come equipped with advanced powertrains that promise exceptional performance and efficiency. The Mazda CX-80 offers two engine options, including a robust 327 HP Plug-in Hybrid and a 254 HP Diesel MHEV, allowing for a maximum torque of 550 Nm. The CX-80 has an impressive 0-100 km/h acceleration time of 6.8 seconds combined with an electric range of 60 km, making it both powerful and economical.

In comparison, the Volvo XC60 presents a wider power range with options peaking at 455 HP. The standout performance is from its higher-end Plug-in Hybrid version that achieves 0-100 km/h in just 4.9 seconds. With a maximum torque of 709 Nm and an electric range of 80 km, the XC60 provides a thrilling driving experience while maintaining efficiency.

Fuel Efficiency and Emissions

Fuel efficiency is paramount in today’s automotive market, and both models offer commendable figures. The Mazda CX-80 consumes an impressive 1.6 L/100 km in its hybrid variant while the Diesel MHEV variant shows a consumption of 5.7 L/100 km. In terms of CO2 emissions, the CX-80 performs admirably with a class B rating, releasing just 35 g/km in the hybrid variant.

In contrast, the Volvo XC60, while not matching the CX-80’s electric efficiency, manages a respectable fuel consumption of 7.7 L/100 km in its gasoline variant, with CO2 emissions varying per model but reaching as low as 22 g/km for the hybrid variant. This puts the XC60 in a favorable light for eco-conscious consumers.

Interior and Technology Features

Inside, the Mazda CX-80 boasts a spacious cabin with cutting-edge technology. It offers a host of driver-assistance features such as adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping assist, and advanced infotainment systems that enhance the driving experience. The option of seven seats makes it a practical choice for families.

Meanwhile, the Volvo XC60 emphasizes luxury and comfort, featuring premium materials and an intuitive infotainment system that is the hallmark of the Scandinavian brand. With a comfortable layout and seating for five, it focuses on creating a serene driving environment, supplemented by advanced safety features like Pilot Assist and a robust suite of the latest driver support technologies.

Conclusion: Which SUV Reigns Supreme?

Ultimately, the choice between the Mazda CX-80 and the Volvo XC60 boils down to personal preferences and lifestyle needs. The CX-80 stands out with its larger size and hybrid efficiency, making it a favorite for families seeking comfort and space. In contrast, the XC60 makes a strong case with its exhilarating performance and luxurious touches, perfect for those looking to combine practicality with a premium experience.

Both vehicles showcase the remarkable advancements in the SUV segment and highlight the unique strengths of their respective brands. Whichever choice you make, you’ll be driving away in a vehicle that reflects the future of driving excellence.