Alfa Romeo Giulia 2016 vs Mazda 3 2019
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.1 Diesel | 1.8 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 180 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 450 NM | 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.1 seconds | 12.1 seconds | |
|
Alfa Romeo Giulia is more dynamic to drive. Alfa Romeo Giulia engine produces 64 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 180 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Alfa Romeo Giulia reaches 100 km/h speed 5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.2 | 4.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.3 l/100km | 5.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Alfa Romeo Giulia consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Alfa Romeo Giulia over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Alfa Romeo Giulia consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1380 km in combined cycle | 1100 km in combined cycle | |
| 1650 km on highway | 1210 km on highway | ||
| 920 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
| Alfa Romeo Giulia 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 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 (Alfa Romeo Giulia) 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.44 m | |
| Alfa Romeo Giulia is 2 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 7 cm wider, while the height of Alfa Romeo Giulia is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 450 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`445 | 1`914 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda 3 scores higher in safety tests. The Mazda 3 scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 29 200 | 16 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Alfa Romeo Giulia has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |