Mazda 3 2009 vs Volvo S60 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 187 NM | 230 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 8.7 seconds | |
|
Volvo S60 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 20 HP less power than Volvo S60, whereas torque is 43 NM less than Volvo S60. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.0 l/100km | 8.7 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 3 consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S60, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 165 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 3 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 800 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo S60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 560'000 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 Volvo S60 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S40, Volvo V50, Volvo S70 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo S60 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo S60 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: | 4.49 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is smaller, but slightly higher. Mazda 3 is 9 cm shorter than the Volvo S60, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 424 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1034 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Mazda 3 has 6 litres more trunk space than the Volvo S60. The Volvo S60 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.6 metres less than that of the Volvo S60, which means Mazda 3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`770 | 1`980 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 3600 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Volvo S60 has
| |