Mazda 3 2016 vs Volvo V40 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.6 seconds | 8.4 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 45 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 50 NM less than Volvo V40. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.4 | 3.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 5.4 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo V40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.8 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 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1150 km in combined cycle | 1720 km in combined cycle | |
| 1240 km on highway | 1820 km on highway | ||
| 770 km with real consumption | 1140 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 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`900 | 1`980 | |
| 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 (€): | 9800 | 11 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |