Mazda 3 2003 vs Honda Accord 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 175 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 11.1 seconds | |
| Mazda 3 engine produces 31 HP less power than Honda Accord, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Honda Accord. Despite less power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 8.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 8.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
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 5 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3, Kia RIO, Kia Cerato, Kia Carens | Used only for this car | |
| 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. | |||
| 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: | 4.42 m | 4.60 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.43 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 18 cm shorter than the Honda Accord, 1 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 | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 1.1 metres less than that of the Honda Accord, which means Mazda 3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`695 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Honda Accord has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Honda Accord has
| |