Mazda 3 2016 vs Nissan Pulsar 2014
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.5 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Mazda 3) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Nissan Pulsar) 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: | 165 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 260 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 11.5 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 55 HP more power than Nissan Pulsar, but torque is 50 NM less than Nissan Pulsar. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 3.6 | |
|
The Nissan Pulsar is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 consumes 2.2 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 330 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 46 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 1270 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 1390 km on highway | ||
| Nissan Pulsar gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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 | |||
| Engine production duration: | 14 years | 8 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 22 other car models, including Nissan Qashqai, Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster, 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. | |||
| 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 Nissan Pulsar 2014 1.5 engine: The engine has many modifications, is sufficiently common and spare parts are available. The fuel consumption/power ratio is good. The fuel injection system can be a problem and the timing belt change interval ... More about Nissan Pulsar 2014 1.5 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`785 | |
| 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 (€): | 9800 | 6200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Nissan Pulsar has
| |