BMW 3 series 2008 vs Mazda 3 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is more dynamic to drive. BMW 3 series engine produces 38 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 45 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.8 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the BMW 3 series over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, BMW 3 series consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 1210 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW 3 series gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Ground clearance: | 144 mm (5.7 inches) | 160 mm (6.3 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda 3 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Mazda 3 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Mazda 3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 1 sērija | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3, Kia RIO, Kia Cerato, Kia Carens | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.53 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.47 m | |
|
BMW 3 series is larger, but lower. BMW 3 series is 4 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 7 cm wider, while the height of BMW 3 series is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 460 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1285 litres | |
|
BMW 3 series has more luggage capacity. BMW 3 series has 47 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 3 series is 0.1 metres more than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`910 | 1`710 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5800 | 2400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.3/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |