The electric vehicle (EV) market continues to accelerate, with most major automakers now offering at least one battery-powered model. Two compelling electric crossovers now available are the Mazda MX-30 and Volvo XC40 Recharge. These urban-oriented EVs blend sporty driving dynamics with the one-pedal driving and instant torque inherent to electric powertrains.
But beyond their electrified platforms, these two small crossovers take divergent approaches regarding design, performance, features and overall functionality. The Mazda prioritizes affordability and a stylish, engaging driving experience suited to cityscapes, while the Volvo majors on family-friendly practicality with greater range and pace enabling use over longer distances and varied conditions.
Below we’ll compare these two EVs across critical categories, assessing their respective strengths and ideal use cases. For EV shoppers, understanding these key distinctions is essential to determining which best aligns with their needs and priorities.
Mazda MX-30 vs. Volvo XC40: Key Specs Comparison
| Specification | Mazda MX-30 | Volvo XC40 Recharge |
|---|---|---|
| Battery Capacity | 35.5 kWh | 75 kWh |
| Max Range (Estimate) | 100 miles | 223 miles |
| Max Power Output | 143 hp (107 kW) | 402 hp (300 kW) |
| 0-60 mph Time | 9.7 seconds | 4.7 seconds |
| Top Speed | 87 mph | 112 mph |
| Price (Starting) | $34,110 | $53,550 |
| Charge Time: 10-80% | 36 minutes | 37 minutes |
| Drivetrain | FWD | AWD |
| Safety Rating | 5 Stars (Euro NCAP) | 5 Stars (Euro NCAP) |
Range and Charging Comparison
A prime point of differentiation between the MX-30 and XC40 is driving range. The Volvo’s 75 kWh battery enables an EPA-estimated 223 miles per charge, over double the 100 miles for the Mazda’s 35.5 kWh pack.
This has significant impact on usage profiles. The XC40’s 200+ mile range allows for road trips and varied rural/suburban driving with less hindrance. Conversely, the MX-30 works best for urban commutes and errands where trips above 100 miles are infrequent. Those lacking regular home or workplace charging access may also prefer the XC40.
Both crossovers support DC fast charging to minimize downtime. Each can replenish from 10-80% capacity in around 35-37 minutes. For owners able to routinely fast charge on trips, the MX-30’s shorter range is less problematic. But the XC40’s added range provides more flexibility should fast charging be unavailable.
Advantage: Volvo XC40
Performance and Driving Dynamics
Performance criteria like acceleration, handling agility and high-speed stability also differ substantially between the two EVs.
The Volvo XC40’s dual motors enable a lively 4.7 seconds 0-60 mph time. Its lowered center of gravity courtesy of the battery pack also promotes sharp handling for an SUV. With AWD traction, 402 hp and a top speed of 112 mph, the XC40 Recharge delivers a spirited, engaging driving experience not typical among compact electric crossovers.
By comparison, the Mazda MX-30’s sole 143 hp electric motor needs 9.7 seconds to reach 60 mph. It also tops out at just 87 mph, with front-wheel drive further limiting hard cornering grip compared to the Volvo. While the MX-30 handles well by mainstream standards, it lacks the XC40’s athleticism and high-speed stability.
Those prioritizing driving enjoyment and performance should find the Volvo XC40 Recharge more rewarding and capable both around town and on the open road.
Advantage: Volvo XC40
Design and Styling Comparison
The Mazda MX-30 (left) cuts a sleeker profile than the more upright Volvo XC40 (right)
Visual distinction is critical for standing out in the crossover segment, and the MX-30 and XC40 take divergent styling approaches.
The Mazda follows a coupe-like “less is more” philosophy marked by a smoothly tapered roofline and shorter overhangs. Its slippery shape speaks to Mazda’s “Kodo” design language focused on capturing motion even while standing still. Sleek dimensions align with the MX-30’s environmentally conscious ethos.
Conversely, the XC40 adheres to Volvo’s boxy, upright stylistic tradition ensuring maximum interior space. Added height provides a commanding view of the road, while the short front and rear overhangs ease navigation of tight urban settings. Rugged cladding and taller ground clearance hint at light off-road ability lacking in the MX-30.
Both EVs qualify as handsome and thoughtfully styled. Yet where the flowing MX-30 seems optimized for the city, the XC40’s extra clearance and overall boxiness give it greater versatility across locales.
Advantage: Tie
Interior Comfort and Cargo Comparison
Dimension and space efficiency also have significant bearing on passenger comfort and utility. Here Volvo’s expertise in packaging people shines through, with the XC40 boasting substantially more front and rear legroom than its Mazda rival. The Volvo’s boxy silhouette pays dividends in both passenger volume and cargo capacity.
| Specification | Mazda MX-30 | Volvo XC40 |
|---|---|---|
| Front Legroom | 39.4 in | 40.9 in |
| Rear Legroom | 33.5 in | 36.1 in |
| Cargo Capacity | 20.2 cu ft | 25.7 cu ft |
The five extra inches of rear legroom are hugely beneficial, enabling sufficient stretch-out space even for taller occupants. And with over 25 cubic feet behind the rear seat, the XC40 can readily accommodate luggage for four on getaways.
By comparison, the MX-30’s tighter dimensions make for a snugger rear seat, while cargo room trails the Volvo significantly. Despite clever packaging, Mazda’s focus on efficiency imposes practicality and flexibility compromises compared to the more spacious XC40.
Advantage: Volvo XC40
Safety Technology and Ratings
Safety leadership is both brands’ common mission, as reflected by full five-star Euro NCAP safety ratings for each vehicle. However, while both prove secure overall, Volvo does manage to outpace its rival in some regards.
Each EV comes standard with blind spot monitoring, rear cross traffic alert, forward collision warning with automatic emergency braking (AEB) and driver attention monitoring. However, the XC40 adds more advanced driver assists like a 360-degree exterior camera system for easier parking and intersection AEB to prevent left-turn collisions.
The Volvo also provides added side-impact absorbing door padding for rear occupants, along with optional Pilot Assist, which combines AEB with adaptive cruise control for hands-free highway driving. Ultimately, the XC40’s broader assist suite helps it better avoid accidents in the first place.
Those wanting cutting-edge driver aids would do well to consider the Volvo, while the Mazda still provides ample safety tech for its class.
Advantage: Volvo XC40
Cost and Availability Comparison
The Mazda MX-30’s base price undercuts the Volvo XC40’s by over $19,000, making it far friendlier for budget-minded buyers. Even a fully-loaded MX-30 remains around $12,000 less than an entry-level XC40 before options. The Mazda also sees wider availability for 2023, with Volvo limiting XC40 Recharge production to just 5,000 units.
Subtracting the $7,500 Federal tax credit does reduce the effective price difference. But value-focused shoppers get more features per dollar with Mazda’s curated approach compared to Volvo’s premium positioning. And the MX-30 avoids potential XC40 markups stemming from constrained inventory.
Of course, those less price-sensitive may find the Volvo’s added battery range, performance, passenger/cargo room and technology worth paying extra for. But overall the MX-30 caters better to budget buyers.
Advantage: Mazda MX-30
Verdict: Which Electric Crossover Is Better Overall?
So which EV wins out in this head-to-head comparison? As with any vehicle purchase, that depends primarily on your needs and priorities as a driver.
For city dwellers focused on value and style, the Mazda MX-30 makes a compelling case. Its elegant design, engaging driving dynamics and approachable pricing make it the more sensible urban EV. Just be mindful of range limits when planning longer trips.
Drivers needing to frequently travel between cities will likely prefer the Volvo XC40 Recharge. The combination of AWD traction, a spacious cabin, 200+ mile range and lively acceleration make it the superior road trip EV, albeit at a steeper price.
Ultimately, there’s no definitively “better” option between these two EVs – just the one that aligns better with your lifestyle. Understanding these key contrasts is vital in determining which crossover EV to make part of your drive.
FAQ
Q: Which EV has the longer driving range?
A: The Volvo XC40 Recharge is EPA rated for 223 miles of range, over double the estimated 100 miles for the Mazda MX-30.
Q: Which is quicker and more fun to drive?
A: The XC40 Recharge’s 402 horsepower and AWD system enable a 0-60 mph time of just 4.7 seconds and lively handling. The less powerful, front-drive Mazda MX-30 is slower in acceleration and cornering.
Q: Which EV offers more interior passenger and cargo room?
A: The boxier Volvo XC40 design pays dividends with superior front and rear legroom along with over 25 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seat. The Mazda MX-30 provides noticeably less room for both passengers and their gear.
Q: Which vehicle costs less to purchase?
A: The Mazda MX-30 starts around $19,000 less than the asking price for an entry-level Volvo XC40 Recharge before considering incentives. Even a loaded MX-30 undercuts a base XC40 significantly.
