Mazda 3 2016 vs Mazda 3 2010

 
Mazda 3
2016 - 2016
Mazda 3
2010 - 2011
Gearbox: ManualManual
Engine: 1.5 Diesel1.6 Diesel

Performance

Power: 105 HP109 HP
Torque: 270 NM270 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 11 seconds11 seconds
Mazda 3 2016 engine produces 4 HP less power than Mazda 3 2010, the torque is the same for both cars.

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 3.84.4
The Mazda 3 2016 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy.
Mazda 3 2016 consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3 2010, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 2016 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 90 litres of fuel.
Fuel tank capacity: 51 litres55 litres
Full fuel tank distance: 1340 km in combined cycle1240 km in combined cycle
1450 km on highway1410 km on highway
Mazda 3 2016 gets more mileage on one fuel tank.
Ground clearance: 155 mm (6.1 inches)155 mm (6.1 inches)

Dimensions

Length: 4.59 m4.58 m
Width: 1.80 m1.76 m
Height: 1.45 m1.47 m
Mazda 3 2016 is larger, but slightly lower.
Mazda 3 2016 and Mazda 3 2010 are practically the same length.
Trunk capacity: 419 litres430 litres
Mazda 3 2016 has 11 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3 2010.
Turning diameter: 10.6 meters10.4 meters
The turning circle of the Mazda 3 2016 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mazda 3 2010.
Gross weight (kg): 1`8701`815
Safety:
Mazda 3 2016 scores higher in safety tests. The Mazda 3 2016 scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests.
Quality:Mazda 3 2016 has fewer problems.
According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 2010 has serious deffects in 150 percent more cases than Mazda 3 2016, so Mazda 3 2016 quality is probably significantly better
Average price (€): 11 6003600
Pros and Cons: Mazda 3 has
  • lower fuel consumption
  • more full fuel tank mileage
  • higher safety
  • better safety assist technologies
  • fewer faults
Mazda 3 has
  • lower price
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv