Kia Ceed 2012 vs Mazda 3 2011
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 1.6 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 128 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 260 NM | 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.7 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Kia Ceed engine produces 13 HP more power than Mazda 3, but torque is 10 NM less than Mazda 3. Despite the higher power, Kia Ceed reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 4.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 5.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Kia Ceed consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Kia Ceed could require 180 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Kia Ceed consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 53 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 960 km in combined cycle | 1270 km in combined cycle | |
| 1170 km on highway | 1440 km on highway | ||
| 770 km with real consumption | 1010 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 km | 470'000 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 3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Hyundai i30, Hyundai Accent, Kia Venga | Used also on Mazda 5 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Kia Ceed might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.31 m | 4.46 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.47 m | |
| Kia Ceed is 15 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 3 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 380 litres | 340 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1318 litres | 1360 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Kia Ceed has 40 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. The Mazda 3 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 42 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Kia Ceed is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`940 | 1`830 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Kia Ceed has serious deffects in 90 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5400 | 5000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Kia Ceed has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |