Ford Puma 2000 vs Mazda MX-3 1994
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 103 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 137 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
| Ford Puma engine produces 7 HP less power than Mazda MX-3, but torque is 8 NM more than Mazda MX-3. Despite less power, Ford Puma reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 6.9 | |
|
The Mazda MX-3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Puma consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda MX-3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Puma could require 60 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 660 km on highway | 830 km on highway | ||
| Mazda MX-3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Mazda MX-3 1994 1.6 engine: This engine is widely regarded as reliable, though it can develop certain issues over time. One of the most common problems is increased oil consumption, often starting after 120,000 km. This is frequently ... More about Mazda MX-3 1994 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.98 m | 4.22 m | |
| Width: | 1.67 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.34 m | 1.31 m | |
|
Ford Puma is smaller, but slightly higher. Ford Puma is 24 cm shorter than the Mazda MX-3, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Puma is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 135 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Puma is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mazda MX-3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`430 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Mazda MX-3 has
| |