Ford EcoSport 2013 vs Mazda CX-3 2014
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 2.0 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: | 125 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.7 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Ford EcoSport engine produces 25 HP less power than Mazda CX-3, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Mazda CX-3. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 | no data | |
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 180 mm (7.1 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Ford EcoSport 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. Note, however, that this Ford EcoSport version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Mazda CX-3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda CX-3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda CX-3 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 CX-3 2014 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda CX-3 2014 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.27 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.55 m | |
| Ford EcoSport and Mazda CX-3 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 333 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1238 litres | 1260 litres | |
| Ford EcoSport has 17 litres less trunk space than the Mazda CX-3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-3 (by 22 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`715 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| The Mazda CX-3 scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford EcoSport has serious deffects in 75 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 9200 | 11 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford EcoSport has
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |