Mazda 3 2016 vs BMW 4 series 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 3.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 258 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 560 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 5.6 seconds | |
|
BMW 4 series is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 138 HP less power than BMW 4 series, whereas torque is 350 NM less than BMW 4 series. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 4.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 5.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 4 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 4 series, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 4 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 57 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 1230 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 820 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW 4 series gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda 3) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW 4 series) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 130 mm (5.1 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: | 4.58 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.39 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is smaller, but higher. Mazda 3 is 6 cm shorter than the BMW 4 series, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 419 litres | 481 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1300 litres | |
|
BMW 4 series has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 62 litres less trunk space than the BMW 4 series. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.7 metres less than that of the BMW 4 series, which means Mazda 3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`835 | 2`165 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 13 400 | 20 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
BMW 4 sērija has
| |