Ford EcoSport 2017 vs Mazda CX-3 2018
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 207 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.6 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is a more dynamic driving. Ford EcoSport engine produces 25 HP less power than Mazda CX-3, whereas torque is 37 NM less than Mazda CX-3. Due to the lower power, Ford EcoSport reaches 100 km/h speed 1.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 6.7 | |
|
The Ford EcoSport is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford EcoSport consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-3, which means that by driving the Ford EcoSport over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 44 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 890 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 1040 km on highway | 720 km on highway | ||
| Ford EcoSport gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Mazda CX-3 2018: AWD system provides 98% of power to the front under normal conditions and can shift up to 50% of torque to the rear if wheels slip. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 190 mm (7.5 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Ford EcoSport 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 Ford EcoSport version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 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 CX-3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Ford Focus, Ford Mondeo, Ford C-Max | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda CX-3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda CX-3 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.10 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.54 m | |
| Ford EcoSport is 18 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-3, width is practically the same , while the height of Ford EcoSport is 11 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 356 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1238 litres | 1260 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Ford EcoSport has 6 litres more trunk space than the Mazda CX-3. The Mazda CX-3 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-3 (by 22 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`775 | 1`808 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford EcoSport has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 14 600 | 18 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford EcoSport has
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |