Mazda 3 2016 vs Nissan Pulsar 2014
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 165 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 50 HP more power than Nissan Pulsar, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Nissan Pulsar. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 5.0 | |
|
The Nissan Pulsar is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. 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. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 46 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 156 mm (6.1 inches) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 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: | 13 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5, Mazda CX-3 | 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. Mazda 3 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. | |||
| Mazda 3 2016 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda 3 2016 2.0 engine | |||
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 |
1334 litres | 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. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Pulsar (by 61 litres). | |||
| 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`815 | 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
| |