Mazda 3 2013 vs Mazda 2 2010
| Body: | Sedan | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 133 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 18 HP more power than Mazda 2, whereas torque is 17 NM more than Mazda 2. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 6.9 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 Mazda 2, 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 Mazda 2. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 43 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 960 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 770 km with real consumption | 620 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 150 mm (5.9 inches) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 390'000 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 Mazda 2 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 2 | Used only for this car | |
| 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: | 4.59 m | 3.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is larger, but slightly lower. Mazda 3 is 67 cm longer than the Mazda 2, 10 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 3 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 419 litres | 250 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 787 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 3 has 169 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 2. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.8 metres more than that of the Mazda 2, which means Mazda 3 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`800 | 1`490 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda 3 scores higher in safety tests, but Mazda 2 is better rated in child safety tests. The Mazda 3 scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mazda 2 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 55 percent more cases than Mazda 2, so Mazda 2 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 600 | 3600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mazda 2 has
| |