Mazda 3 2019 vs BMW 4 series 2017
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.1 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
BMW 4 series is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 34 HP less power than BMW 4 series, whereas torque is 50 NM less than BMW 4 series. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.6 | 4.1 | |
|
The BMW 4 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 4 series, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 75 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1100 km in combined cycle | 1460 km in combined cycle | |
| 1210 km on highway | 1660 km on highway | ||
| BMW 4 series 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 (BMW 4 series) 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. | |||
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 | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW 1 sērija, BMW X3, BMW 2 sērija | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW 4 series might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| BMW 4 sērija 2017 2.0 engine: Pretty reliable engine with great durability. Overall, the chains are more reliable than on BMW N-series engines. However, they do tend to stretch under heavy use. The engine needs good quality fuel, ... More about BMW 4 sērija 2017 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.64 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.39 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 2 cm longer than the BMW 4 series, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 450 litres | 480 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1138 litres | no data | |
|
BMW 4 series 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. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11.3 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 1`914 kg | 2`090 kg | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda 3 is better rated in child safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | low | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 16 000 | 33 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
BMW 4 sērija has
| |