Mazda 3 2016 vs Volvo V40 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Diesel | |
| 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 | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 45 HP more power than Volvo V40, but torque is 70 NM less than Volvo V40. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 3.7 | |
|
The Volvo V40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 315 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 40 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 1080 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 1170 km on highway | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5, Mazda CX-3 | Used also on Volvo V40 Cross Country | |
| 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 | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.44 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 10 cm longer than the Volvo V40, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda 3 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 335 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1334 litres | 1500 litres | |
| Mazda 3 has 29 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V40. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo V40 (by 166 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Volvo V40. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`815 | 1`995 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 10 400 | 13 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |