HomeVolvo EX30
Search History
Popular Searches
Dealer Login / Sign Up
在马来西亚的SUV市场，很多买家在选车的时候都会拿 Mazda CX-8 和 Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 来做比较。这两款车在价位和定位上都蛮接近的，今天我们就从多个方面做一个详细的对比，帮你省下做功课的时间。
Mazda CX-8 在马来西亚的 OTR 售价是 RM 165,360 - 201,360，一共有 5 个版本，包括 2025 2.5T 4WD High Plus Petrol（RM 201,360）、2025 2.2L 2WD High Plus Diesel（RM 193,123）、2025 2.5L 2WD High Plus Petrol（RM 186,360） 等。
Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 在马来西亚的 OTR 售价是 RM 129,750 - 129,750，一共有 2 个版本，包括 2025 1.5T 90km CSH（RM 129,750）、What charging methods does the Tiggo 7 PHEV support? Can it be charged using a home power socket?（RM 117,478） 等。
从价钱来看，Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 的起步价比 Mazda CX-8 便宜了 RM 35,610。老实讲，在这个价位段，几千块的差距其实不算大，关键还是看整体的性价比和长期使用成本。
Mazda CX-8 的安全评级是 5★ (ASEAN NCAP)，主动安全系统包括 Brand ADAS。
Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 的安全评级是 TBD，主动安全系统包括 Basic。
安全配备方面，两款车都拿到了不错的评级。不过 Mazda CX-8 的 Brand ADAS 和 Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 的 Basic 在功能上有些差异，如果你比较看重主动安全的话，可以仔细对比一下两者的功能列表。
Mazda CX-8 车身长 4500 mm，后备箱 450 L。
Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 车身长 4400 mm，后备箱 400 L。
空间方面，Mazda CX-8 的车身比 Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 长了 100 mm，车内乘坐空间会稍微宽裕一些，尤其是后座腿部空间。如果你经常载家人或者需要放婴儿车，大一点的车身确实更实用。
Mazda CX-8 保修 5年/150,000km，保养间隔 每10,000km或6个月。
Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 保修 3年/100,000km，保养间隔 每10,000km或6个月。
总的来说，Mazda CX-8 和 Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 都是马来西亚市场很不错的车型。选择哪一辆，关键还是要看你的个人需求和预算。建议大家做好功课，多比较几间车行的报价，再去试驾做最终决定。买车是件大事，花点时间做功课绝对不会错。
在马来西亚的SUV市场，很多买家在选车的时候都会拿 Mazda CX-8 和 Chery Tiggo 8 来做比较。这两款车在价位和定位上都蛮接近的，今天我们就从多个方面做一个详细的对比，帮你省下做功课的时间。
Mazda CX-8 在马来西亚的 OTR 售价是 RM 165,360 - 201,360，一共有 5 个版本，包括 2025 2.5T 4WD High Plus Petrol（RM 201,360）、2025 2.2L 2WD High Plus Diesel（RM 193,123）、2025 2.5L 2WD High Plus Petrol（RM 186,360） 等。
Chery Tiggo 8 在马来西亚的 OTR 售价是 RM 129,750 - 129,750，一共有 1 个版本，包括 2026 1.6T Standard（RM 129,750） 等。
从价钱来看，Chery Tiggo 8 的起步价比 Mazda CX-8 便宜了 RM 35,610。老实讲，在这个价位段，几千块的差距其实不算大，关键还是看整体的性价比和长期使用成本。
Mazda CX-8 搭载 2.0L 4-cyl，马力 170 hp。官方油耗 8.0 L/100km。
Chery Tiggo 8 搭载 1.5L Turbo，马力 140 hp。官方油耗 7.0 L/100km。
动力方面，Mazda CX-8 的 2.0L 4-cyl 比 Chery Tiggo 8 的 1.5L Turbo 多了 30 匹马力，中段加速更有信心，尤其是跑高速公路超车的时候。不过 Chery Tiggo 8 的油耗可能更友好，日常市区通勤差别不会太大。
Mazda CX-8 车身长 4500 mm，后备箱 450 L。
Chery Tiggo 8 车身长 4400 mm，后备箱 400 L。
空间方面，Mazda CX-8 的车身比 Chery Tiggo 8 长了 100 mm，车内乘坐空间会稍微宽裕一些，尤其是后座腿部空间。如果你经常载家人或者需要放婴儿车，大一点的车身确实更实用。
Mazda CX-8 采用 FWD 驱动方式。
Chery Tiggo 8 采用 FWD 驱动方式。
两款车的驱动方式一样，都是 FWD，日常驾驶感受不会有太大区别。
Mazda CX-8 和 Chery Tiggo 8 都是马来西亚市场的主流选择，适合家庭使用、日常通勤。如果你更看重品牌口碑和二手价，可以优先考虑口碑更好的那一款；如果你更在意性价比和配备，那就选配置更丰富的那款。最终还是建议两款都去试驾，亲身体验才是最重要的。
总的来说，Mazda CX-8 和 Chery Tiggo 8 都是马来西亚市场很不错的车型。选择哪一辆，关键还是要看你的个人需求和预算。建议大家做好功课，多比较几间车行的报价，再去试驾做最终决定。买车是件大事，花点时间做功课绝对不会错。
在马来西亚的SUV市场，很多买家在选车的时候都会拿 Mazda CX-8 和 Chery Tiggo 8 来做比较。这两款车在价位和定位上都蛮接近的，今天我们就从多个方面做一个详细的对比，帮你省下做功课的时间。
Mazda CX-8 在马来西亚的 OTR 售价是 RM 165,360 - 201,360，一共有 5 个版本，包括 2025 2.5T 4WD High Plus Petrol（RM 201,360）、2025 2.2L 2WD High Plus Diesel（RM 193,123）、2025 2.5L 2WD High Plus Petrol（RM 186,360） 等。
Chery Tiggo 8 在马来西亚的 OTR 售价是 RM 129,750 - 129,750，一共有 1 个版本，包括 2026 1.6T Standard（RM 129,750） 等。
从价钱来看，Chery Tiggo 8 的起步价比 Mazda CX-8 便宜了 RM 35,610。老实讲，在这个价位段，几千块的差距其实不算大，关键还是看整体的性价比和长期使用成本。
Mazda CX-8 搭载 2.0L 4-cyl，马力 170 hp。官方油耗 8.0 L/100km。
Chery Tiggo 8 搭载 1.5L Turbo，马力 140 hp。官方油耗 7.0 L/100km。
动力方面，Mazda CX-8 的 2.0L 4-cyl 比 Chery Tiggo 8 的 1.5L Turbo 多了 30 匹马力，中段加速更有信心，尤其是跑高速公路超车的时候。不过 Chery Tiggo 8 的油耗可能更友好，日常市区通勤差别不会太大。
Mazda CX-8 的安全评级是 5★ (ASEAN NCAP)，主动安全系统包括 Brand ADAS。
Chery Tiggo 8 的安全评级是 TBD，主动安全系统包括 Basic。
安全配备方面，两款车都拿到了不错的评级。不过 Mazda CX-8 的 Brand ADAS 和 Chery Tiggo 8 的 Basic 在功能上有些差异，如果你比较看重主动安全的话，可以仔细对比一下两者的功能列表。
Mazda CX-8 车身长 4500 mm，后备箱 450 L。
Chery Tiggo 8 车身长 4400 mm，后备箱 400 L。
空间方面，Mazda CX-8 的车身比 Chery Tiggo 8 长了 100 mm，车内乘坐空间会稍微宽裕一些，尤其是后座腿部空间。如果你经常载家人或者需要放婴儿车，大一点的车身确实更实用。
Mazda CX-8 保修 5年/150,000km，保养间隔 每10,000km或6个月。
Chery Tiggo 8 保修 3年/100,000km，保养间隔 每10,000km或6个月。
总的来说，Mazda CX-8 和 Chery Tiggo 8 都是马来西亚市场很不错的车型。选择哪一辆，关键还是要看你的个人需求和预算。建议大家做好功课，多比较几间车行的报价，再去试驾做最终决定。买车是件大事，花点时间做功课绝对不会错。
在马来西亚的SUV市场，很多买家在选车的时候都会拿 Mazda CX-8 和 Chery Tiggo Cross 来做比较。这两款车在价位和定位上都蛮接近的，今天我们就从多个方面做一个详细的对比，帮你省下做功课的时间。
Mazda CX-8 在马来西亚的 OTR 售价是 RM 165,360 - 201,360，一共有 5 个版本，包括 2025 2.5T 4WD High Plus Petrol（RM 201,360）、2025 2.2L 2WD High Plus Diesel（RM 193,123）、2025 2.5L 2WD High Plus Petrol（RM 186,360） 等。
Chery Tiggo Cross 在马来西亚的 OTR 售价是 RM 88,750 - 99,750，一共有 2 个版本，包括 2025 HEV 1.5L CSH（RM 99,750）、2025 1.5T Standard（RM 88,750） 等。
从价钱来看，Chery Tiggo Cross 的起步价比 Mazda CX-8 便宜了 RM 76,610。老实讲，在这个价位段，几千块的差距其实不算大，关键还是看整体的性价比和长期使用成本。
Mazda CX-8 搭载 2.0L 4-cyl，马力 170 hp。官方油耗 8.0 L/100km。
Chery Tiggo Cross 搭载 1.5L 4-cyl，马力 105 hp。官方油耗 6.0 L/100km。
动力方面，Mazda CX-8 的 2.0L 4-cyl 比 Chery Tiggo Cross 的 1.5L 4-cyl 多了 65 匹马力，中段加速更有信心，尤其是跑高速公路超车的时候。不过 Chery Tiggo Cross 的油耗可能更友好，日常市区通勤差别不会太大。
Mazda CX-8 的安全评级是 5★ (ASEAN NCAP)，主动安全系统包括 Brand ADAS。
Chery Tiggo Cross 的安全评级是 TBD，主动安全系统包括 Basic。
安全配备方面，两款车都拿到了不错的评级。不过 Mazda CX-8 的 Brand ADAS 和 Chery Tiggo Cross 的 Basic 在功能上有些差异，如果你比较看重主动安全的话，可以仔细对比一下两者的功能列表。
Mazda CX-8 保修 5年/150,000km，保养间隔 每10,000km或6个月。
Chery Tiggo Cross 保修 3年/100,000km，保养间隔 每10,000km或6个月。
Mazda CX-8 和 Chery Tiggo Cross 都是马来西亚市场的主流选择，适合家庭使用、日常通勤。如果你更看重品牌口碑和二手价，可以优先考虑口碑更好的那一款；如果你更在意性价比和配备，那就选配置更丰富的那款。最终还是建议两款都去试驾，亲身体验才是最重要的。
总的来说，Mazda CX-8 和 Chery Tiggo Cross 都是马来西亚市场很不错的车型。选择哪一辆，关键还是要看你的个人需求和预算。建议大家做好功课，多比较几间车行的报价，再去试驾做最终决定。买车是件大事，花点时间做功课绝对不会错。
在马来西亚的SUV市场，很多买家在选车的时候都会拿 Mazda CX-60 和 Mercedes-Benz GLA 来做比较。这两款车在价位和定位上都蛮接近的，今天我们就从多个方面做一个详细的对比，帮你省下做功课的时间。
Mazda CX-60 在马来西亚的 OTR 售价是 RM 200,510 - 252,873，一共有 2 个版本，包括 2026 3.3T 4WD High Plus（RM 252,873）、2025 2.5L 2WD High（RM 200,510） 等。
Mercedes-Benz GLA 在马来西亚的 OTR 售价是 RM 258,888 - 295,888，一共有 1 个版本，包括 Standard（RM 258,888） 等。
从价钱来看，Mazda CX-60 的起步价确实比 Mercedes-Benz GLA 便宜了 RM 58,378。如果你预算有限，Mazda 的入门版已经可以满足日常需求。但也要注意，便宜的那几千块，可能在配备上会有取舍，具体要看你的需求。
Mazda CX-60 的安全评级是 5★ (Euro NCAP)，主动安全系统包括 i-Activsense Pro。
Mercedes-Benz GLA 的安全评级是 5★ (Euro NCAP)，主动安全系统包括 Premium ADAS。
两款车的安全评级一样，在这个级别里面安全配备都算给得很齐全了。现在的新车安全性都不差，不用太担心这一点。
Mazda CX-60 采用 FWD 驱动方式。
Mercedes-Benz GLA 采用 FWD 驱动方式。
两款车的驱动方式一样，都是 FWD，日常驾驶感受不会有太大区别。
Mazda CX-60 保修 5年/150,000km，保养间隔 每10,000km或6个月。
Mercedes-Benz GLA 保修 3年/100,000km，保养间隔 每10,000km或6个月。
总的来说，Mazda CX-60 和 Mercedes-Benz GLA 都是马来西亚市场很不错的车型。选择哪一辆，关键还是要看你的个人需求和预算。建议大家做好功课，多比较几间车行的报价，再去试驾做最终决定。买车是件大事，花点时间做功课绝对不会错。
On May 24, according to Reuters' report this week, the Thailand Consumer Protection Agency OCPB filed a civil lawsuit against Volvo Thailand, as the EX30 electric vehicle experienced a battery-related fire incident. This action stems from two EX30 fire incidents that occurred in Thailand this month; currently, there are already 1600 EX30s on the road in the country.
A Volvo spokesperson stated that the fire incident occurrence rate is extremely low, with the proportion of affected vehicles far below 0.1%, and a notice has been issued to owners: temporarily do not charge the battery above 70%. Officials from the Thailand Consumer Protection Agency revealed that Volvo proposed multiple solutions at the negotiation meeting, including battery replacement, providing temporary replacement vehicles, etc., but owners were not satisfied. A user attending the meeting stated: "What most consumers want is a full refund, not a battery replacement."
Two EX30 fire incidents directly exposed the true reality of the so-called "safest automobile brand".
The start of this crisis was on May 15, when an EX30 caught fire while charging at the owner's home, even spreading to the Ford Ranger pickup truck next door. It is reported that this is the second EX30 fire incident occurring in Thailand. Regarding this matter, the Thai Consumer Protection Committee also filed a civil lawsuit against Volvo Thailand.
Of course, Volvo also proposed a remedial plan: replacing the entire battery for 90% of affected vehicles, and replacing modules for only 10%, while the company provided users with charging vouchers worth 8,500 Thai Baht and substitute vehicle services. However, most car owners did not accept this, insisting on returning the car for a refund instead of replacing the battery.
Why was the attitude of Thai consumers so firm? Actually, the source of this controversy can be traced back to February this year, when Volvo had already announced a global recall of more than 40,000 EX30 vehicles to replace battery modules. The reason was that the high-voltage battery had defects that could cause the battery pack to overheat or even catch fire. But unexpectedly, the problem had already been discovered, yet the EX30 still had two fires, so Thai consumers naturally did not give in.
Reviewing the entire incident, the most glaring issue was not just the vehicle fire itself, but that Volvo knew there were safety hazards in the product but failed to solve the problem thoroughly from the root. This treatment method that addresses symptoms but not the cause is essentially indifference to consumer safety rights and directly tore apart Volvo's safety coat maintained for many years.
Perhaps some will defend Volvo: EV fires are an industry-wide ailment, and a car company cannot be heavily criticized. But the problem lies in the fact that Volvo's foundation is "absolute safety". When a car company writes "safety" into the brand name, prints it in every ad, and engraves it into every generation of consumers' cognition, becoming a core brand gene and the premium foundation supporting it above ordinary domestic brands, it must bear higher expectation standards than ordinary car companies.
We do not deny that in the era of fuel vehicles, Volvo built itself as the "safest car" in consumers' hearts; but in the era of electric vehicles, Volvo cannot even guarantee basic battery charging safety. This extreme contrast brings a reputation backlash that is far more fatal than ordinary quality control issues.
In addition, the EX30 fire also affected another brand.
As everyone in the industry knows, Volvo was fully acquired by Geely long ago. And this fire-exposed EX30 was not independently developed by Volvo. The whole vehicle was customized based on Geely's self-developed SEA pure electric architecture. Its core three-electric components such as battery pack, electronic control system, and drive motor are highly homologous with Zeekr X, so many people see it as a "rebadged Zeekr X".
Rebadged car manufacturing is not exactly a "sin", but the point of contradiction is that the SEA architecture, as Geely's exclusive premium pure electric platform, has focused on two major advantages of high safety and high adaptability since its birth. It is Geely's core competitive edge to break into the premium new energy market. Now, derivative models of the architecture have successively exposed battery fire hazards. Does this mean the platform's three-electric system has underlying design or quality control loopholes, rather than a single vehicle individual failure?
Anyway, given the current situation, this hazard not only dragged down Volvo's overseas market reputation, but also seriously stabbed Geely's development pain points. If this matter cannot be properly solved, then consumers in Southeast Asia will significantly reduce their trust in Volvo and even Geely, after all, once a crack is formed, it is very hard to repair.
As for consumers, the author has only one suggestion: Do not believe any marketing jargon like "hundred-year brand" or "safety benchmark". In the face of this new species of electric vehicles, all reputation accumulated in the era of fuel vehicles may be overturned instantly by a battery or a BMS system. Before buying a car, check who the battery supplier of this car is, check if there has been a recall history, these information, actually will be more useful.
Final Thoughts
In short, these two fire incidents in Thailand have sounded the alarm for consumers: safety in the era of electrification is no longer just about how thick the car body steel is; battery and thermal management systems being reliable and safe are also crucial. And in the era of electrification, when Volvo cannot even prevent charging spontaneous combustion, what does it have left?
"Images sourced from the internet, please contact us if there is infringement"
© 2024 Bitauto.com. All Rights Reserved.
Bitauto (www.yiche.com and www.bitauto.com) is one of the most visited automotive websites in China. We provide detailed info on Chinese car brands available in your area. Please note that the information provided on this website is based on publicly available data and is for reference only. It may not be fully updated or accurate at all times.
