Mazda 3 2019 vs Volvo V40 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 186 HP | 122 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.9 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 64 HP more power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Volvo V40. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.5 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.9 l/100km | 8.0 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 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 165 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 3 consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 48 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 1140 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 1400 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V40 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: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.46 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.44 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 9 cm longer than the Volvo V40, width is practically the same also the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 351 litres | 335 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1026 litres | 1500 litres | |
| Mazda 3 has 16 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V40. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo V40 (by 474 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Volvo V40. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`013 kg | 1`965 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 21 000 | 10 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |