Mazda 3 2016 vs Volvo V40 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 1.6 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.6 seconds | 12.3 seconds | |
| Mazda 3 engine produces 10 HP less power than Volvo V40, the torque is the same for both cars. Despite less power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.4 | 3.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 5.0 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 1.6 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 | 1240 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. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 133 mm (5.2 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 560'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volvo V40 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 2 | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo S40, Volvo V60 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Volvo V40 2012 1.6 engine: The main issues reported by owners are frequent oil and coolant leaks. The Siemens fuel system with piezo injectors is highly sensitive to fuel quality, requiring the use of high-grade diesel to avoid ... More about Volvo V40 2012 1.6 engine | |||
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 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 335 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1263 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 3 has 29 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.6 metres less than that of the Volvo V40, which means Mazda 3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`900 | 1`890 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 9600 | 7400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |