Mazda 3 2016 vs Kia Ceed 2015
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 135 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 165 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 10.2 seconds | |
|
Kia Ceed is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 35 HP less power than Kia Ceed, whereas torque is 15 NM less than Kia Ceed. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Kia Ceed, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Kia Ceed. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 53 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 980 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 1170 km on highway | ||
| 790 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 420'000 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 Kia Ceed engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 2 | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Kia Sportage, Hyundai Tucson, Hyundai Elantra, Hyundai i30 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Kia Ceed might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Kia Ceed 2015 1.6 engine: The engine is generally a reliable design and not particularly sensitive to fuel quality. However, it is prone to several common issues. One of the most widespread problems is the rapid buildup of carbon ... More about Kia Ceed 2015 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.47 m | 4.31 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.47 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is larger, but slightly lower. Mazda 3 is 16 cm longer than the Kia Ceed, 2 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 3 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 380 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1263 litres | 1318 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 16 litres less trunk space than the Kia Ceed. This could mean that the Mazda 3 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Kia Ceed (by 55 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`800 | 1`820 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Kia Ceed has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Kia Ceed, so Kia Ceed quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 10 400 | 7400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Kia Ceed has
| |