Mazda 3 2004 vs Ford Focus 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| 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: | 84 HP | 80 HP | |
| Torque: | 122 NM | 124 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.3 seconds | 14.1 seconds | |
|
Ford Focus is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 4 HP more power than Ford Focus, but torque is 2 NM less than Ford Focus. Despite the higher power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.1 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.3 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 75 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 3 consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 2 | Used also on Ford Fiesta | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Mazda 3 2004 1.4 engine: The engine is generally robust, but the use of poor-quality fuel can lead to increased burn formation. Idling speeds tend to be unstable. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.42 m | 4.34 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.45 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 8 cm longer than the Ford Focus, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 300 litres | 385 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
635 litres | 1247 litres | |
|
Ford Focus has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 85 litres less trunk space than the Ford Focus. This could mean that the Mazda 3 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Focus (by 612 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.1 metres less than that of the Ford Focus. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`695 | 1`690 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Ford Focus has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 3, so Ford Focus quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 7.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Ford Focus has
| |