Mazda 3 2003 vs Skoda Octavia 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 8.4 seconds | |
|
Skoda Octavia is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 45 HP less power than Skoda Octavia, whereas torque is 65 NM less than Skoda Octavia. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 7.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 8.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Octavia, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Octavia. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3 | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Audi A4, Audi A3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine: This engine is widely regarded as reliable, though it can develop certain issues over time. One of the most common problems is increased oil consumption, often starting after 120,000 km. This is frequently ... More about Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine Skoda Octavia 2000 1.8 engine: The weakest link in this engine is the turbine, whose failure is contributed to by a faulty catalytic converter. The oil pump and chain tensioner also tend to have problems. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.42 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.43 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 9 cm shorter than the Skoda Octavia, 3 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 3 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 300 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
635 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.5 metres less than that of the Skoda Octavia, which means Mazda 3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`695 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Mazda 3 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Skoda Octavia, so Mazda 3 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 5.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Skoda Octavia has
| |