Mazda 3 2019 vs Mazda 3 2016

 
Mazda 3
2019 -
Mazda 3
2016 - 2019
Gearbox: AutomaticAutomatic
Engine: 1.8 Diesel1.5 Diesel
Camshaft drive: Timing chainTiming chain

Performance

Power: 116 HP105 HP
Torque: 270 NM270 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 12.1 seconds11.6 seconds
Mazda 3 2019 engine produces 11 HP more power than Mazda 3 2016, the torque is the same for both cars. Despite the higher power, Mazda 3 2019 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later.

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 4.74.4
Real fuel consumption: 5.9 l/100km6.6 l/100km
The Mazda 3 2019 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise.
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.
But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 3 2019 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3 2016.
Fuel tank capacity: 51 litres51 litres
Full fuel tank distance: 1080 km in combined cycle1150 km in combined cycle
1180 km on highway1240 km on highway
860 km with real consumption770 km with real consumption

Engines

Average engine lifespan: 360'000 km330'000 km
Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used.
Engine production duration: 6 years10 years
Engine spread: Used only for this carUsed 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 m4.47 m
Width: 1.80 m1.80 m
Height: 1.44 m1.45 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 litres364 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down
1019 litres1263 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 meters10.6 meters
Gross weight (kg): 1`9191`900
Safety: no data
Quality:
low

low
Average price (€): 21 00010 400
Pros and Cons: Mazda 3 has
  • more power
  • longer expected engine lifespan
Mazda 3 has
  • more full fuel tank mileage
  • roomier boot
  • lower price
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv