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: | Automatic | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.4 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: | 94 HP | 84 HP | |
| Torque: | 130 NM | 122 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 seconds | 14.9 seconds | |
|
Chevrolet Aveo is more dynamic to drive. Chevrolet Aveo engine produces 10 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 8 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Chevrolet Aveo reaches 100 km/h speed 3.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.0 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.7 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Aveo consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chevrolet Aveo could require 45 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Aveo consumes 3.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 640 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 420 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Chevrolet Lacetti, 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Chevrolet Aveo engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
| 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`535 | 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
| |