Mazda 3 2019 vs Mazda 3 2016
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 1.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 2019 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 2019 engine produces 11 HP more power than Mazda 3 2016, the torque is the same for both cars. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 2019 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.1 | 3.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.4 l/100km | 5.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 2016 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 2019 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3 2016, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 2019 could require 45 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 2019 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3 2016. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1240 km in combined cycle | 1340 km in combined cycle | |
| 1340 km on highway | 1450 km on highway | ||
| 940 km with real consumption | 980 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 2016 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: | 135 mm (5.3 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda 3 2016 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 2016 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 360'000 km | 330'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Mazda 2 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 3 2016 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.46 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.45 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda 3 2019 is 1 cm shorter than the Mazda 3 2016, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda 3 2019 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 330 litres | 364 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1019 litres | 1263 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 2016 has more luggage space. Mazda 3 2019 has 34 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3 2016. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 2016 (by 244 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 1`898 kg | 1`870 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`385 kg | 1`260 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 513 kg | 610 kg | |
| Mazda 3 2019 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 19 procentiem less than Mazda 3 2016. Therefore, Mazda 3 2016 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | low | |
| Average price (€): | 21 600 | 9400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |