Mazda 2 2010 vs Citroen C3 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.4 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Mazda 2) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Citroen C3) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| 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: | 84 HP | 70 HP | |
| Torque: | 121 NM | 160 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.9 seconds | 16 seconds | |
|
Mazda 2 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 2 engine produces 14 HP more power than Citroen C3, but torque is 39 NM less than Citroen C3. Thanks to more power Mazda 2 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 4.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 5.2 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen C3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 2 consumes 0.7 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 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 2 consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 43 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 1130 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 1310 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 960 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen C3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 400'000 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 | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 3 | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 2 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Citroen C3 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. | |||
| 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 |
no data | 1000 litres | |
|
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`455 | 1`564 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| Mazda 2 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen C3 has serious deffects in 50 percent more cases than Mazda 2, so Mazda 2 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 2800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 2 has
|
Citroen C3 has
| |