Mazda 3 2009 vs Mazda 3 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 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: | 105 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.2 seconds | 11 seconds | |
| Mazda 3 2009 and Mazda 3 2006 have the same engine power, the torque is the same for both cars. Mazda 3 2009 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 2009 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 2009 consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3 2006, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 2009 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 2009 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3 2006. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 1050 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 2009 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 160 mm (6.3 inches) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 420'000 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: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3, Kia RIO, Kia Cerato, Kia Carens | |
| 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: | no | yes | |
| 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: | 4.58 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.47 m | |
| Mazda 3 2009 is 9 cm longer than the Mazda 3 2006, width is practically the same also the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1285 litres | |
| Mazda 3 2009 has 17 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3 2006. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 2009 is 0.5 metres less than that of the Mazda 3 2006, which means Mazda 3 2009 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`745 | 1`710 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Average price (€): | 3600 | 2400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |