Mazda 3 2006 vs Skoda Octavia 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 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: | 105 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 155 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.7 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
|
Skoda Octavia is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 11 HP less power than Skoda Octavia, whereas torque is 10 NM less than Skoda Octavia. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Octavia, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 45 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Octavia. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 790 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Skoda Octavia gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 160 mm (6.3 inches) | 140 mm (5.5 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: | 420'000 km | 350'000 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: | 16 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3, Kia RIO, Kia Cerato, Kia Carens | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Audi A3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.42 m | 4.57 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is smaller. Mazda 3 is 15 cm shorter than the Skoda Octavia, 1 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 300 litres | 560 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
635 litres | no data | |
|
Skoda Octavia has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 260 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Octavia. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.7 metres more than that of the Skoda Octavia, which means Mazda 3 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`725 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Octavia has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 1800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Skoda Octavia has
| |