Mazda 3 2006 vs Mazda 3 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 84 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 122 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.9 seconds | 12.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 2009 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 2006 engine produces 21 HP less power than Mazda 3 2009, whereas torque is 23 NM less than Mazda 3 2009. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 2006 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 6.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 2009 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 2006 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3 2009, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 2006 could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 2006 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3 2009. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 2009 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 160 mm (6.3 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
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 | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 2 | 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 2006 1.3 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 | 4.46 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.47 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda 3 2006 is 4 cm shorter than the Mazda 3 2009, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda 3 2006 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 300 litres | 340 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
635 litres | 1360 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 2009 has more luggage space. Mazda 3 2006 has 40 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3 2009. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 2009 (by 725 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 2006 is 0.5 metres more than that of the Mazda 3 2009, which means Mazda 3 2006 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`715 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 4200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |