Chevrolet Spark 2013 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: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 81 HP | 84 HP | |
| Torque: | 111 NM | 122 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.1 seconds | 14.9 seconds | |
| Chevrolet Spark engine produces 3 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 11 NM less than Mazda 3. Despite less power, Chevrolet Spark reaches 100 km/h speed 2.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Chevrolet Spark is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chevrolet Spark consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Chevrolet Spark over 15,000 km in a year you can save 240 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chevrolet Spark consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 35 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 830 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 540 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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: | 3.64 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.60 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.47 m | |
|
Chevrolet Spark is smaller, but higher. Chevrolet Spark is 85 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 18 cm narrower, while the height of Chevrolet Spark is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 170 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
873 litres | 1285 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Chevrolet Spark has 243 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 412 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Spark is 0.9 metres less than that of the Mazda 3, which means Chevrolet Spark can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`360 | 1`715 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Chevrolet Spark has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Chevrolet Spark, so Chevrolet Spark quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 2800 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Spark has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |