Mazda 3 2016 vs Volvo V40 2016
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 2.0 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 | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 15 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 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 3.8 | 3.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.2 l/100km | 4.9 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo V40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.4 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 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 40 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1340 km in combined cycle | 1170 km in combined cycle | |
| 1450 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 980 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 420'000 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: | 10 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 2 | Used also on Volvo V40 Cross Country | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mazda 3 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
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`870 | 1`920 | |
| 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
| |