Mazda 3 2009 vs Volvo S60 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 187 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Volvo S60 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 13 HP less power than Volvo S60, whereas torque is 213 NM less than Volvo S60. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.0 l/100km | 6.7 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo S60 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S60, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 300 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 2.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 68 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 1150 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 1470 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 1010 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo S60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is smaller. Mazda 3 is 14 cm shorter than the Volvo S60, 11 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 380 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Mazda 3 has 50 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 | 11.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.9 metres less than that of the Volvo S60, which means Mazda 3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`770 | 2`110 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Volvo S60 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 3, so Volvo S60 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 3600 | 7400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Volvo S60 has
| |