BMW 3 series 2024 vs Mazda 3 2019
| Comparing electrical vehicle (EV) with combustion engine (ICE) one is a complex task, but we are doing our best. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Hybrid | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Hybrid engines (BMW 3 series) offer better fuel economy and lower emissions than petrol engines, especially in city driving with frequent stops. Petrol (Mazda 3) engines, however, are typically less expensive to buy and maintain, and offer more consistent performance on highways. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 255 HP | 186 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 8.5 seconds | |
| BMW 3 series engine produces 69 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 160 NM more than Mazda 3. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 5.7 l/100km | |
| Fuel cost per 100km: | no data | 11.50 $ | |
|
Change fuel prices per unit to adjust the calculation to the fuel prices in your country. Petrol$/l | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 890 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 1080 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 3 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: | 142 mm (5.6 inches) | 135 mm (5.3 inches) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.72 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.83 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.44 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. BMW 3 series is 6 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 3 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 480 litres | 450 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 1138 litres | |
|
BMW 3 series has more luggage capacity. BMW 3 series has 30 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 3 series is 0.8 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means BMW 3 series can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`140 kg | 1`959 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`653 kg | 1`394 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 487 kg | 565 kg | |
| BMW 3 series load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 16 procentiem less than Mazda 3. Therefore, Mazda 3 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 34 000 | 14 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |