Honda Accord 2001 vs Mazda 3 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 212 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 215 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.2 seconds | 9.1 seconds | |
|
Honda Accord is more dynamic to drive. Honda Accord engine produces 62 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 28 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Honda Accord reaches 100 km/h speed 1.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.6 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.8 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda Accord consumes 2.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Honda Accord could require 330 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda Accord consumes 2.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 830 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 600 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 390'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Honda Prelude | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | |
| 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: | 4.60 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.47 m | |
| Honda Accord is 2 cm longer than the Mazda 3, width is practically the same , while the height of Honda Accord is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 430 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda Accord is 1 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Honda Accord can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`790 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Honda Accord has serious deffects in 460 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 3600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda Accord has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |