Mazda 3 2016 vs Nissan Qashqai 2013
| Body: | Sedan | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 1.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 260 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 5 HP less power than Nissan Qashqai, but torque is 10 NM more than Nissan Qashqai. Despite less power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 3.8 | no data | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 55 litres | |
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 180 mm (7.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Nissan Qashqai 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 Nissan Qashqai version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. Choose from two 4x4 versions of Nissan Qashqai 2013 if off-road driveability is important to you. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 2 | Installed on at least 22 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Renault Scenic, Dacia Duster, Nissan Juke | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan Qashqai might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mazda 3 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.59 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.59 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 21 cm longer than the Nissan Qashqai, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 14 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 419 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1585 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 11 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Qashqai. 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: | 10.6 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.1 metres less than that of the Nissan Qashqai. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`870 | 1`910 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Qashqai has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 600 | 10 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Nissan Qashqai has
| |