Mazda 3 2019 vs Mazda 3 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 12.1 seconds | 11.6 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): | 4.7 | 4.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.9 l/100km | 6.6 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 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1080 km in combined cycle | 1150 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 1240 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| 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`919 kg | 1`900 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`406 kg | 1`285 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 513 kg | 615 kg | |
| Mazda 3 2019 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 20 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 (€): | 21 200 | 9800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |