Volvo S40 2007 vs Mazda 3 2011
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 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: | 140 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Volvo S40 engine produces 10 HP less power than Mazda 3, but torque is 33 NM more than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Volvo S40 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.1 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.0 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo S40 consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo S40 could require 225 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo S40 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 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 Volvo S40 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo V50, Volvo S70 | 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. Volvo S40 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volvo S40 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: | 4.48 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.47 m | |
| Volvo S40 is 10 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 2 cm wider, while the height of Volvo S40 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 404 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
883 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Volvo S40 has 26 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo S40 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Volvo S40 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`940 | 1`820 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S40 has serious deffects in 75 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4600 | 5000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S40 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |