Mazda 3 2006 vs Audi A3 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 148 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.7 seconds | 13.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 3 HP more power than Audi A3, but torque is 3 NM less than Audi A3. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.7 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi A3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 30 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 Audi A3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| Ground clearance: | 160 mm (6.3 inches) | 113 mm (4.4 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 | 460'000 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 Audi A3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 10 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 3 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Audi A4, Seat Exeo | |
| 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: | 4.42 m | 4.29 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.42 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 13 cm longer than the Audi A3, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda 3 is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 300 litres | 370 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
635 litres | 1120 litres | |
|
Audi A3 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 70 litres less trunk space than the Audi A3. 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 Audi A3 (by 485 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Audi A3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`750 | 1`855 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Audi A3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Audi A3, so Audi A3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Audi A3 has
| |