Mazda 3 2019 vs Skoda Scala 2019
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 122 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 213 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.8 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
| Mazda 3 engine produces 7 HP more power than Skoda Scala, whereas torque is 13 NM more than Skoda Scala. Despite the higher power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 5.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 5.8 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Scala is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Scala, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Scala. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 920 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 1080 km on highway | 1190 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
| Skoda Scala 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) | 149 mm (5.9 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Skoda Scala 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 Skoda Scala version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.46 m | 4.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.47 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is larger, but slightly lower. Mazda 3 is 10 cm longer than the Skoda Scala, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda 3 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 330 litres | 467 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1019 litres | 1410 litres | |
|
Skoda Scala has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, 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 Skoda Scala (by 391 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.3 metres less than that of the Skoda Scala. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`907 kg | 1`668 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`389 kg | 1`305 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 518 kg | 363 kg | |
| Mazda 3 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 30 procentiem more than Skoda Scala. Therefore, Mazda 3 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 21 200 | 13 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Skoda Scala has
| |