Chevrolet Aveo 2003 vs Mazda 3 2006
| Body: | Hatchback | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.1 Petrol | 1.3 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: | 72 HP | 84 HP | |
| Torque: | 104 NM | 122 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.7 seconds | 14.9 seconds | |
| Chevrolet Aveo engine produces 12 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 18 NM less than Mazda 3. Despite less power, Chevrolet Aveo reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.9 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Chevrolet Aveo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Aveo consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Chevrolet Aveo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Aveo consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 810 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Chevrolet Kalos | Used also on Mazda 2 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Mazda 3 2006 1.4 engine: The engine is generally robust, but the use of poor-quality fuel can lead to increased burn formation. Idling speeds tend to be unstable. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.88 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.49 m | 1.47 m | |
|
Chevrolet Aveo is smaller, but slightly higher. Chevrolet Aveo is 61 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 11 cm narrower, while the height of Chevrolet Aveo is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 175 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
980 litres | 1285 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Chevrolet Aveo has 238 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 305 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Aveo is 1.1 metres less than that of the Mazda 3, which means Chevrolet Aveo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`445 | 1`715 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chevrolet Aveo has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 2600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.3/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Aveo has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |