Mazda 3 2016 vs Volvo V40 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 122 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 2 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 10 NM less than Volvo V40. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.2 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 30 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 3 consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 1140 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 1400 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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 |
1263 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 237 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`835 | 1`965 | |
| 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 | 13 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |