Mazda 3 2019 vs Mercedes C class 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 122 HP | 156 HP | |
| Torque: | 213 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.8 seconds | 8.5 seconds | |
|
Mercedes C class is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 34 HP less power than Mercedes C class, whereas torque is 37 NM less than Mercedes C class. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes C class, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes C class. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 41 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 920 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 1100 km on highway | 810 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 510 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda 3) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Mercedes C class) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.69 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.44 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda 3 is 3 cm shorter than the Mercedes C class, 1 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 450 litres | 480 litres | |
|
Mercedes C class has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 30 litres less trunk space than the Mercedes C class. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11.22 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`902 | 1`990 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda 3 scores higher in safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | low | high | |
| Mercedes C class has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 140 percent more cases than Mercedes C class, so Mercedes C class quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 14 600 | 27 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mercedes C klase has
| |