Mazda 3 2019 vs Volvo V40 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 122 HP | |
| Torque: | 213 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.3 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 28 HP more power than Volvo V40, but torque is 7 NM less than Volvo V40. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.9 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 3 consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 225 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 3 consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 1140 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 1400 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.46 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.44 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 9 cm longer than the Volvo V40, width is practically the same also the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 295 litres | 335 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1019 litres | 1500 litres | |
|
Volvo V40 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 40 litres less trunk space than the Volvo V40. This could mean that the Mazda 3 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo V40 (by 481 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Volvo V40. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`965 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 21 000 | 13 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |