Mazda 3 2016 vs Mazda 3 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 2013 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 2016 engine produces 30 HP less power than Mazda 3 2013, the torque is the same for both cars. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 2016 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 6.2 | |
|
The Mazda 3 2016 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 2016 consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3 2013, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 2016 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 90 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 860 km on highway | ||
| Mazda 3 2016 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Mazda 3 2013 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 2013 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.47 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.45 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda 3 2016 and Mazda 3 2013 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 364 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1263 litres | 1263 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`835 | 1`835 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 10 400 | 7000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |