Renault Megane 2009 vs Mazda 3 2009
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 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: | 250 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.1 seconds | 9.1 seconds | |
|
Renault Megane is more dynamic to drive. Renault Megane engine produces 100 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 153 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Renault Megane reaches 100 km/h speed 3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.4 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.3 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Renault Megane consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Megane could require 150 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Renault Megane consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| Ground clearance: | 120 mm (4.7 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda 3 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Mazda 3 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Renault Megane 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: | 4.30 m | 4.46 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.47 m | |
| Renault Megane is 16 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 9 cm wider, while the height of Renault Megane is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 344 litres | 340 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1024 litres | 1360 litres | |
| Renault Megane has 4 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 336 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.3 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Megane is 0.9 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Renault Megane can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`835 | 1`800 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Megane has serious deffects in 55 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3600 | 4200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Renault Megane has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |