Mazda 2 2010 vs Citroen C3 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| 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: | 75 HP | 82 HP | |
| Torque: | 119 NM | 116 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.9 seconds | 12.3 seconds | |
|
Citroen C3 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 2 engine produces 7 HP less power than Citroen C3, but torque is 3 NM more than Citroen C3. Due to the lower power, Mazda 2 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 4.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 6.2 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 2 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 2 could require 90 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 2 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 43 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 1280 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 800 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen C3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 370'000 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 Citroen C3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 3 | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Peugeot 308, Citroen C1, Peugeot 2008, Opel Crossland | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Citroen C3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Mazda 2 2010 1.3 engine: The engine is generally robust, but the use of poor-quality fuel can lead to increased burn formation. Idling speeds tend to be unstable. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.92 m | 3.94 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Mazda 2 is smaller. Mazda 2 is 2 cm shorter than the Citroen C3, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 2 is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 250 litres | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
787 litres | no data | |
|
Citroen C3 has more luggage space. Mazda 2 has 50 litres less trunk space than the Citroen C3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 2 is 0.4 metres less than that of the Citroen C3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`485 | 1`511 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | below average | |
| Mazda 2 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen C3 has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Mazda 2, so Mazda 2 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3600 | 7800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 2 has
|
Citroen C3 has
| |