Mazda 3 2016 vs Volvo V40 2016

 
Mazda 3
2016 - 2019
Volvo V40
2016 - 2020
Gearbox: ManualManual
Engine: 2.0 Petrol2.0 Petrol

Performance

Power: 120 HP152 HP
Torque: 210 NM250 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 8.9 seconds8.9 seconds
Mazda 3 engine produces 32 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Volvo V40.

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 5.15.6
Real fuel consumption: 6.6 l/100km6.9 l/100km
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy.
By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel.
By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40.
Fuel tank capacity: 51 litres62 litres
Full fuel tank distance: 1000 km in combined cycle1100 km in combined cycle
1180 km on highway1340 km on highway
770 km with real consumption890 km with real consumption
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.

Dimensions

Length: 4.47 m4.37 m
Width: 1.80 m1.80 m
Height: 1.45 m1.44 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 litres335 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down, if possible
1263 litres1500 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 meters10.8 meters
The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Volvo V40.
Gross weight: 1`815 kg1`965 kg
Net weight:1`205 kg1`507 kg
Load capacity:610 kg458 kg
Mazda 3 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 25 procentiem more than Volvo V40. Therefore, Mazda 3 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads.
Safety: no datano 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 (€): 940010 400
Pros and Cons: Mazda 3 has
  • lower fuel consumption
  • roomier boot
  • higher carrying (cargo) capacity
  • lower price
Volvo V40 has
  • more power
  • more full fuel tank mileage
  • fewer faults
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv