BMW 2 series 2013 vs Mazda 3 2013
| Body: | Cabrio | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 245 HP | 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
BMW 2 series is more dynamic to drive. BMW 2 series engine produces 80 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 140 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power BMW 2 series reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 6.2 | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. BMW 2 series consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW 2 series could require 60 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| 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 (BMW 2 series) 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. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 140 mm (5.5 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. | |||
| Mazda 3 2013 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda 3 2013 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.43 m | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.45 m | |
|
BMW 2 series is smaller. BMW 2 series is 15 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 2 cm narrower, while the height of BMW 2 series is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 280 litres | 419 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
335 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. BMW 2 series has 139 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 2 series is 0.3 metres more than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`995 | 1`815 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 2 series has serious deffects in 85 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 26 000 | 11 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 2 sērija has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |