Mazda 3 2006 vs Mazda 3 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.7 seconds | 13.1 seconds | |
| Mazda 3 2006 and Mazda 3 2009 have the same engine power, the torque is the same for both cars. Mazda 3 2006 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 7.5 | |
| Mazda 3 2006 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3 2009, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 2006 could require 45 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
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 2006 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3, Kia RIO, Kia Cerato, Kia Carens | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 3 2006 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mazda 3 2006 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 | 4.46 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.47 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda 3 2006 is 4 cm shorter than the Mazda 3 2009, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda 3 2006 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 300 litres | 340 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
635 litres | 1360 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 2009 has more luggage space. Mazda 3 2006 has 40 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3 2009. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 2009 (by 725 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 2006 is 0.5 metres more than that of the Mazda 3 2009, which means Mazda 3 2006 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`750 | 1`785 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 4200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |