Deutschland
France
Nederland
Great Britain
Sverige
Danmark
Suomi
Italia
Polska
Česko
EspañaVS
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque vs Mazda CX-80 comparison
Compare performance (269 HP vs 327 HP), boot space and price (43,300 £ vs 49,300 £ ) at a glance. Find out which car is the better choice for you – Land Rover Range Rover Evoque or Mazda CX-80?
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque vs Mazda CX-80: Key differences
All details on performance, efficiency, range and trunk space can be found in the technical comparison below – including user reviews for both models.
Range Rover Evoque
Costs and Efficiency:
Looking at overall running costs, both models reveal some interesting differences in everyday economy.
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is moderately cheaper – starting at 43,300 £ , while the Mazda CX-80 costs 49,300 £ . That’s a price difference of around 6,043 £.
Fuel consumption also shows a difference: the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque uses 3.7 L/100km and is very slightly more efficient than the Mazda CX-80 with 4 L/100km. The difference is about 0.3 L/100km.
As for electric range, the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque offers a bit more range – reaching up to 67 km, about 7 km more than the Mazda CX-80.
CX-80
Engine and Performance:
Under the bonnet, it becomes clear which model is tuned for sportiness and which one takes the lead when you hit the accelerator.
When it comes to engine power, the Mazda CX-80 offers slightly more power – delivering 327 HP compared to 269 HP. That’s roughly 58 HP more horsepower.
When accelerating from 0 to 100 km/h, the Mazda CX-80 is very slightly quicker – completing the sprint in 6.8 s, while the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque takes 7.2 s. That’s about 0.4 s quicker.
There’s also a difference in torque: the Mazda CX-80 delivers marginally more torque with 550 Nm compared to 540 Nm. That’s about 10 Nm more.
Range Rover Evoque
Space and Everyday Use:
Beyond pure performance, interior space and usability matter most in daily life. This is where you see which car is more practical and versatile.
Seats: Mazda CX-80 offers more seats – 7 vs 5.
In terms of curb weight, Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is moderately lighter – 1,792 kg compared to 2,131 kg. The difference is around 339 kg.
Looking at boot space, the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque offers substantially more boot space – 472 L compared to 258 L. That’s a difference of about 214 L.
When it comes to payload, the Mazda CX-80 carries barely more – 650 kg compared to 600 kg. That’s a difference of about 50 kg.
Who wins the race in the data check?
The Mazda CX-80 comes out clearly ahead in the objective data comparison.
This result only shows which model scores more points on paper – not which of the two cars feels right for you.
from £49,300
Mazda CX-80
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque
Mazda CX-80
Costs and Consumption
View detailed analysis
View detailed analysis
Engine and Performance
View detailed analysis
View detailed analysis
Dimensions and Body
View detailed analysis
View detailed analysis
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque
The Range Rover Evoque turns heads with a compact, sculpted silhouette and an interior that feels more boutique hotel than utility vehicle. It delivers composed, playful handling around town while keeping enough ruggedness for weekend escapes — perfect for buyers who want luxury without the ostentation.
details
Mazda CX-80
The Mazda CX-80 brings polished, near-premium styling and a cabin that feels far classier than its badge might imply. It steers with a composed, engaging character and packs the sensible practicality families want — with just enough flair to make school runs feel a little less ordinary.
details
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque
Mazda CX-80
Costs and Consumption |
|
|---|---|
|
Price
43,300 - 64,800 £
|
Price
49,300 - 61,400 £
|
|
Consumption L/100km
3.7 - 7.8 L/100km
|
Consumption L/100km
4 - 5.6 L/100km
|
|
Consumption kWh/100km
-
|
Consumption kWh/100km
-
|
|
Electric Range
67 km
|
Electric Range
60 km
|
|
Battery Capacity
-
|
Battery Capacity
-
|
|
co2
85 - 177 g/km
|
co2
91 - 146 g/km
|
|
Fuel tank capacity
-
|
Fuel tank capacity
-
|
Dimensions and Body |
|
|---|---|
|
Body Type
SUV
|
Body Type
SUV
|
|
Seats
5
|
Seats
7
|
|
Doors
-
|
Doors
-
|
|
Curb weight
1,792 - 2,157 kg
|
Curb weight
2,131 - 2,240 kg
|
|
Trunk capacity
472 L
|
Trunk capacity
258 L
|
|
Length
-
|
Length
-
|
|
Width
1,900 mm
|
Width
1,890 mm
|
|
Height
-
|
Height
-
|
|
Max trunk capacity
-
|
Max trunk capacity
-
|
|
Payload
503 - 600 kg
|
Payload
649 - 650 kg
|
Engine and Performance |
|
|---|---|
|
Engine Type
Petrol MHEV, Diesel MHEV, Plugin Hybrid
|
Engine Type
Plugin Hybrid, Diesel MHEV
|
|
Transmission
Automatic
|
Transmission
Automatic
|
|
Transmission Detail
Automatic Gearbox
|
Transmission Detail
Automatic Gearbox
|
|
Drive Type
Front-Wheel Drive, All-Wheel Drive
|
Drive Type
All-Wheel Drive
|
|
Power HP
160 - 269 HP
|
Power HP
254 - 327 HP
|
|
Acceleration 0-100km/h
7.2 - 10.3 s
|
Acceleration 0-100km/h
6.8 - 8.4 s
|
|
Max Speed
-
|
Max Speed
-
|
|
Torque
260 - 540 Nm
|
Torque
500 - 550 Nm
|
|
Number of Cylinders
3 - 4
|
Number of Cylinders
4 - 6
|
|
Power kW
118 - 198 kW
|
Power kW
187 - 241 kW
|
|
Engine capacity
1,498 - 1,998 cm3
|
Engine capacity
2,488 - 3,283 cm3
|
General |
|
|---|---|
|
Model Year
2,025 - 2,026
|
Model Year
2025
|
|
CO2 Efficiency Class
G, F, B
|
CO2 Efficiency Class
B, E
|
|
Brand
Land Rover
|
Brand
Mazda
|
DriveDuel uses data analysis and artificial intelligence to evaluate vehicle data and create content. Content is regularly reviewed and improved.
The displayed prices are estimates based on German list prices, adjusted to the respective country’s VAT. Country-specific registration taxes are not included. This information is not legally binding.