Mazda 3 2016 vs Skoda Rapid 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 1.6 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.6 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
| Mazda 3 and Skoda Rapid have the same engine power, but Mazda 3 torque is 20 NM more than Skoda Rapid. Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.4 | 4.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 5.2 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Rapid is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Rapid, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 15 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Rapid. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1150 km in combined cycle | 1270 km in combined cycle | |
| 1240 km on highway | 1480 km on highway | ||
| 770 km with real consumption | 1050 km with real consumption | ||
| Skoda Rapid gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 136 mm (5.4 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda 3 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Mazda 3 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.47 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.46 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 1 cm shorter than the Skoda Rapid, 9 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 3 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 550 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1263 litres | 1490 litres | |
|
Skoda Rapid has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 186 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Rapid. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Rapid (by 227 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`900 | 1`725 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Skoda Rapid has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 3, so Skoda Rapid quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 9600 | 6200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Skoda Rapid has
| |