Dodge Charger 2010 vs Mazda CX-3 2014
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Body: | Coupe | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
| Dodge Charger is available only with automatic gearbox, whereas Mazda CX-3 has both automatic and manual transmission options. | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Dodge Charger is available with rear wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive, while Mazda CX-3 can be equipped with front wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Dodge Charger also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 3.6 - 6.4 (petrol) | 1.5 - 2.0 (petrol, diesel) | |
| Both cars are available with petrol engines. Mazda CX-3 is available also with diesel engines. Diesel engines typically offer better fuel efficiency and higher torque compared to other engine types. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 296 - 477 HP | 105 - 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 353 - 637 NM | 204 - 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 8.7 - 11.9 seconds | |
| In general, Mazda CX-3 are available with more powerful and dynamic engines than Dodge Charger. Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.0 - 13.8 | 4.0 - 6.4 | |
|
Dodge Charger petrol engines consumes on average 5.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than Mazda CX-3. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 111 - 128 mm (4.4 - 5 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda CX-3 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.08 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.91 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.55 m | |
|
Dodge Charger is larger, but lower. Dodge Charger is 80 cm longer than the Mazda CX-3, 14 cm wider, while the height of Dodge Charger is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 467 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1260 litres | |
|
Dodge Charger has more luggage capacity. Dodge Charger has 117 litres more trunk space than the Mazda CX-3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Dodge Charger is 1.2 metres more than that of the Mazda CX-3, which means Dodge Charger can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | ~ 1`814 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 11 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Dodge Charger has
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |