Mazda 3 2019 vs Mercedes C class 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 2.1 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.1 seconds | 7.8 seconds | |
|
Mercedes C class is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 54 HP less power than Mercedes C class, whereas torque is 130 NM less than Mercedes C class. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 4.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.6 | 4.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.9 l/100km | 6.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes C class, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 15 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 3 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes C class. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 41 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1100 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 1210 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 360'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 13 other car models, including Mercedes E klase, Mercedes ML, Mercedes A klase | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mercedes C class might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
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`914 | 2`135 | |
| 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 (€): | 14 800 | 28 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mercedes C klase has
| |