Mazda 3 2016 vs Volvo V40 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 165 HP | 190 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 6.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 25 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 90 NM less than Volvo V40. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 5.5 | |
|
The Volvo V40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 consumes 0.3 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 45 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 1120 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 1340 km on highway | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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 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`975 | |
| 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 (€): | 9600 | 11 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |