Alfa Romeo Giulia 2016 vs Mazda 3 2019
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.9 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 510 HP | 122 HP | |
| Torque: | 600 NM | 213 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 3.9 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
|
Alfa Romeo Giulia is more dynamic to drive. Alfa Romeo Giulia engine produces 388 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 387 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Alfa Romeo Giulia reaches 100 km/h speed 6.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.9 l/100km | 6.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Alfa Romeo Giulia consumes 2.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Alfa Romeo Giulia could require 405 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Alfa Romeo Giulia consumes 5.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 58 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 920 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 1100 km on highway | ||
| 480 km with real consumption | 760 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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): | no data | 1`902 | |
| 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
| |