Mercedes CLK 1997 vs Mazda MX-3 1991
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Petrol | 1.8 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: | 193 HP | 135 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 160 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.4 seconds | 8.5 seconds | |
| Mercedes CLK engine produces 58 HP more power than Mazda MX-3, whereas torque is 120 NM more than Mazda MX-3. Thanks to more power Mercedes CLK reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.9 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.5 l/100km | 9.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda MX-3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mercedes CLK consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda MX-3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mercedes CLK could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mercedes CLK consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda MX-3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 550 km in combined cycle | |
| 830 km on highway | 700 km on highway | ||
| 590 km with real consumption | 520 km with real consumption | ||
| Mercedes CLK gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda MX-3) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Mercedes CLK) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 520'000 km | 400'000 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 Mercedes CLK engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mercedes SLK | 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. Mercedes CLK might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.57 m | 4.22 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.31 m | |
|
Mercedes CLK is larger. Mercedes CLK is 35 cm longer than the Mazda MX-3, 2 cm wider, while the height of Mercedes CLK is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 420 litres | 289 litres | |
|
Mercedes CLK has more luggage capacity. Mercedes CLK has 131 litres more trunk space than the Mazda MX-3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mercedes CLK is 0.9 metres more than that of the Mazda MX-3, which means Mercedes CLK can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`850 | 1`450 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mercedes CLK has
|
Mazda MX-3 has
| |