Mazda 2 2010 vs Mazda 3 2013
| 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: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 119 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.9 seconds | 10.3 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 2 engine produces 45 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 31 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Mazda 2 reaches 100 km/h speed 4.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 5.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 2 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 2 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Mazda 2 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 2 consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 43 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 960 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 1180 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| 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: | 330'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 3 | 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.92 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 67 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 2 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 250 litres | 419 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
787 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Mazda 2 has 169 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`485 | 1`800 | |
| 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: | high | average | |
| Mazda 2 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 55 percent more cases than Mazda 2, so Mazda 2 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 11 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 2 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |