2002 Jeep Compass vs. 2013 Mazda CX-05
To start off, 2013 Mazda CX-05 is newer by 11 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 Jeep Compass. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 Jeep Compass would be higher. At 3,700 cc (6 cylinders), 2002 Jeep Compass is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 Jeep Compass (210 HP) has 57 more horse power than 2013 Mazda CX-05. (153 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2002 Jeep Compass should accelerate faster than 2013 Mazda CX-05. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Mazda CX-05 weights approximately 149 kg more than 2002 Jeep Compass.
With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2002 Jeep Compass (319 Nm) has 116 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Mazda CX-05. (203 Nm). This means 2002 Jeep Compass will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Mazda CX-05.
Compare all specifications:
| 2002 Jeep Compass | 2013 Mazda CX-05 | |
| Make | Jeep | Mazda |
| Model | Compass | CX-05 |
| Year Released | 2002 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Crossover | Crossover |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3700 cc | 1998 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 210 HP | 153 HP |
| Torque | 319 Nm | 203 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | AWD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1406 kg | 1555 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4160 mm | 4555 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1840 mm | 2165 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1640 mm | 1710 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2660 mm | 2700 mm |
