Mazda 3 2006 vs Ford Focus 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 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: | 105 HP | 145 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 185 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.7 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Ford Focus is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 40 HP less power than Ford Focus, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Ford Focus. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 7.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 8.2 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 Mazda 3 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 790 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 470'000 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 Ford Focus engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 8 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 2 other car models, including Ford Mondeo, Ford C-Max | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mazda 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: | 4.42 m | 4.34 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.45 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 8 cm longer than the Ford Focus, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 300 litres | 385 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
635 litres | 1247 litres | |
|
Ford Focus has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 85 litres less trunk space than the Ford Focus. This could mean that the Mazda 3 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Focus (by 612 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.5 metres more than that of the Ford Focus, which means Mazda 3 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`725 | 1`775 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Mazda 3 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Ford Focus, so Mazda 3 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 7.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Ford Focus has
| |