Ratings Comparison: Proton X70 vs Honda CR-V vs Mazda CX-5 - Fuel consumption

Shaun/Jul 03, 2020 11:54 AM

The Proton X70, Honda CR-V, and Mazda CX-5 feature turbocharged engines with different capacities at 1.8-litre, 1.5-litre and 2.5-litre respectively. And they weigh differently from each other as well. How do they fare in real-world driving? Let’s dig in.

Facts and Figures
  Proton X70 Premium (CBU) Honda CR-V 1.5 TC-P Mazda CX-5 Turbo
Engine 1.8L 4-cyl turbo 1.5L 4-cyl turbo 2.5L 4-cyl turbo
Transmission 6-speed AT CVT 6-speed AT
Power 184 PS 193 PS 230 PS
Torque 285 Nm 243 Nm 420 Nm
Weight 1,695 kg 1,549 kg 1,758 kg
0-100 km/h 10.1 seconds 8.9 seconds 7.8 seconds

Before each test, all tyres were inflated to the manufacturer’s recommended pressure. The fuel tank was filled up using the ‘three-click’ method, using RON 95 petrol.

Driving behaviour was as per a normal driver, accelerating and braking whenever necessary but the speed limit was capped at 110 km/h. Air conditioning was set at 22 degrees and fan speed 2.

Proton X70

At the end of the test, we’ve covered 58.1 km with a journey breakdown of 60% highway 40% city driving. The trip computer displayed an average fuel economy of 7.4-litre/100 km.

The fuel tank required 4.38 litres of fuel which works out to fuel consumption of 7.5-litre/100 km as tested.

Honda CR-V

After a 45 km journey of 60% highway 40% city, the amount we filled up was 3.16 litres. A quick calculation on the distance travelled and amount refuelled worked out to 7-litre/100 km.

Mazda CX-5

In the Mazda CX-5 Turbo, we covered 146.2 km with a journey breakdown of 40% highway 60% city driving.

The fuel tank required 15.2 litres of fuel which works out to fuel consumption of 10.4-litre/100 km as tested. The trip computer displayed an average fuel economy of 9.7-litre/100 km.

So there we have it, the Honda CR-V is the most fuel efficient SUV in this comparison. Its engine capacity is the smallest here and has the least weight.

Keep in mind however, fuel consumption may vary significantly depending on driving behaviour and conditions due to the nature of turbocharging.

2018 Proton X70 Ratings:

Driving Performance and Comfort

Quality and Features

Space and Practicality

Fuel Consumption

2018 Honda CR-V 1.5 TC-P Ratings:

Driving Performance and Comfort 

Build Quality and Features

Space and Practicality

Fuel Consumption

2019 Mazda CX-5 2.5 Turbo Ratings:

Driving Performance and Comfort

Quality and Features

Space and Practicality

Fuel Consumption

Comments