Chevrolet Colorado 2006 vs Mazda 3 2006
| Body: | Crossover / SUV | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.8 Petrol | 2.3 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 177 HP | 156 HP | |
| Torque: | 251 NM | 203 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Chevrolet Colorado engine produces 21 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 48 NM more than Mazda 3. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.5 | 9.4 | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Chevrolet Colorado consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chevrolet Colorado could require 165 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 74 litres | 44 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 460 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 540 km on highway | ||
| Chevrolet Colorado gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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 (Chevrolet Colorado) 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. | |||
| Mazda 3 2006 2.3 engine: The cooling system pump and thermostat, engine mounts (which can cause vibration), lambda sensor, and intake manifold adjuster are the most common problems with this engine. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.26 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.66 m | 1.47 m | |
| Chevrolet Colorado is 77 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Chevrolet Colorado is 19 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 645 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1285 litres | |
|
Chevrolet Colorado has more luggage capacity. Chevrolet Colorado has 232 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 10.9 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 6800 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Colorado has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |