Mazda 3 2016 vs Nissan Pulsar 2014
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.9 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
|
Nissan Pulsar is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 5 HP more power than Nissan Pulsar, but torque is 40 NM less than Nissan Pulsar. Despite the higher power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 5.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Pulsar is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Pulsar, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Pulsar. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 46 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 1040 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 156 mm (6.1 inches) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 280'000 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 3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 2 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Nissan Juke | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| 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: | 4.47 m | 4.39 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is larger, but lower. Mazda 3 is 8 cm longer than the Nissan Pulsar, 3 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 3 is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 385 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1395 litres | |
|
Nissan Pulsar has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 21 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Pulsar. This could mean that the Mazda 3 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.4 metres more than that of the Nissan Pulsar, which means Mazda 3 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`835 | 1`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Nissan Pulsar has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Nissan Pulsar, so Nissan Pulsar quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 10 400 | 7200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Nissan Pulsar has
| |