Mazda 2 2010 vs Mazda 3 2016
| Body: | Hatchback | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 1.5 Diesel | |
| 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: | 95 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 205 NM | 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 2 engine produces 10 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 65 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Mazda 2 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.2 | 3.8 | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 2 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 2 could require 60 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 43 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1020 km in combined cycle | 1340 km in combined cycle | |
| 1160 km on highway | 1450 km on highway | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 150 mm (5.9 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 330'000 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 2 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Mazda 2 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.90 m | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Mazda 2 is smaller, but slightly higher. Mazda 2 is 69 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 2 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 249 litres | 419 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
787 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Mazda 2 has 170 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 2 is 0.8 metres less than that of the Mazda 3, which means Mazda 2 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`540 | 1`870 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda 3 scores higher in safety tests. The Mazda 3 scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 2 has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably slightly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 3600 | 11 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 2 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |