Mazda 3 2016 vs Ford Focus 2018
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
| 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 | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 40 HP more power than Ford Focus, whereas torque is 40 NM more than Ford Focus. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | no data | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 52 litres | |
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 300'000 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 | 13 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 3 other car models, including Ford Mondeo, Ford C-Max, Ford EcoSport | |
| 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 | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.45 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 9 cm longer than the Ford Focus, 3 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 375 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1334 litres | 1354 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 11 litres less trunk space than the Ford Focus. 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 Ford Focus (by 20 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.4 metres less than that of the Ford Focus, which means Mazda 3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`815 | 1`900 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 10 000 | 12 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Ford Focus has
| |