Mazda 3 2016 vs Skoda Rapid 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 165 HP | 86 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 160 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 11.8 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 79 HP more power than Skoda Rapid, whereas torque is 50 NM more than Skoda Rapid. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 5.1 | |
|
The Skoda Rapid is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Rapid, 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 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 1240 km on highway | ||
| Skoda Rapid gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 136 mm (5.4 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda 3 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Mazda 3 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 350'000 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 7 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Volkswagen Caddy, Skoda Fabia, Audi A1 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| 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 Skoda Rapid 2012 1.2 engine: Although the engine has a chain, its lifespan is relatively low. There tends to be increased vibration at idling speed. Problems with the fuel pressure pump may be the first sign of a petrol smell in the oil. ... More about Skoda Rapid 2012 1.2 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.47 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.46 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 1 cm shorter than the Skoda Rapid, 9 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 3 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 550 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1334 litres | 1490 litres | |
|
Skoda Rapid has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 186 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Rapid. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Rapid (by 156 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 Skoda Rapid, which means Mazda 3 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`815 | 1`615 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Skoda Rapid has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 3, so Skoda Rapid quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 10 400 | 6200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Skoda Rapid has
| |