Mazda 3 2016 vs Nissan Pulsar 2014

 
Mazda 3
2016 - 2019
Nissan Pulsar
2014 - 2018
Gearbox: AutomaticAutomatic
Engine: 2.0 Petrol1.2 Petrol

Performance

Power: 165 HP115 HP
Torque: 210 NM165 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 8.2 seconds12.7 seconds
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive.
Mazda 3 engine produces 50 HP more power than Nissan Pulsar, whereas torque is 45 NM more than Nissan Pulsar. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 4.5 seconds faster.

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 5.85.1
The Nissan Pulsar is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy.
Mazda 3 consumes 0.7 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 105 litres more fuel.
Fuel tank capacity: 51 litres46 litres
Full fuel tank distance: 870 km in combined cycle900 km in combined cycle
1060 km on highway1040 km on highway
Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy.
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 m4.39 m
Width: 1.80 m1.77 m
Height: 1.45 m1.52 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 litres385 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down
1334 litresno data
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 meters10.2 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`8151`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 4007200
Pros and Cons: Mazda 3 has
  • more power
  • more dynamic
Nissan Pulsar has
  • lower fuel consumption
  • roomier boot
  • fewer faults
  • lower price
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv