Mazda 3 2016 vs Mazda 3 2016

 
Mazda 3
2016 - 2019
Mazda 3
2016 - 2019
Body: SedanHatchback
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: ManualManual
Engine: 2.2 Diesel2.2 Diesel
Camshaft drive: Timing chainTiming chain

Performance

Power: 150 HP150 HP
Torque: 380 NM380 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 8 seconds8.1 seconds
Mazda 3 2016 and Mazda 3 2016 have the same engine power, the torque is the same for both cars. Mazda 3 2016 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster.

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 3.94.1
Real fuel consumption: 5.8 l/100km5.8 l/100km
The Mazda 3 2016 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy.
By specification Mazda 3 2016 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3 2016, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 2016 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel.
Fuel tank capacity: 51 litres51 litres
Full fuel tank distance: 1300 km in combined cycle1240 km in combined cycle
1450 km on highway1410 km on highway
870 km with real consumption870 km with real consumption
Ground clearance: 155 mm (6.1 inches)155 mm (6.1 inches)

Engines

Average engine lifespan: 350'000 km350'000 km
Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used.
Engine production duration: 11 years11 years

Dimensions

Length: 4.58 m4.47 m
Width: 1.78 m1.80 m
Height: 1.45 m1.45 m
Mazda 3 2016 is 11 cm longer than the Mazda 3 2016, 2 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly.
Trunk capacity: 419 litres364 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down
no data1263 litres
Mazda 3 2016 has more luggage capacity.
Mazda 3 2016 has 55 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3 2016.
Turning diameter: 10.6 meters10.6 meters
Gross weight (kg): 1`9101`910
Safety: no datano data
Quality:
low

low
Average price (€): 13 40010 400
Pros and Cons: Mazda 3 has
  • lower fuel consumption
  • roomier boot
Mazda 3 has
  • lower price
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv