Kia Ceed 2010 vs Mazda 3 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 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: | 143 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 186 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Kia Ceed engine produces 7 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 24 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Kia Ceed reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 6.2 | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Kia Ceed consumes 1.4 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 210 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 53 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 860 km on highway | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 400'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Kia Sportage, Hyundai Sonata, Hyundai Tucson, Hyundai Elantra | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5, Mazda CX-3 | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda 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. | |||
| Kia Ceed 2010 2.0 engine: Relatively reliable engine with a large resource. Can have inherent vibrations and is noisier than a typical petrol engine. Spare parts widely available. May have problems with ignition system and temperature ... More about Kia Ceed 2010 2.0 engine Mazda 3 2013 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 3 2013 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.26 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Kia Ceed is smaller, but slightly higher. Kia Ceed is 21 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, width is practically the same , while the height of Kia Ceed is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 340 litres | 364 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1263 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Kia Ceed has 24 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Kia Ceed is 0.3 metres less than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`835 | |
| Safety: | 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 (€): | 3600 | 7000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Kia Ceed has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |