Mazda 3 2006 vs Ford Focus 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 155 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.7 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
|
Ford Focus is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 10 HP less power than Ford Focus, whereas torque is 10 NM less than Ford Focus. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 7.9 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 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 790 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 1070 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3 | Used also on Ford C-Max | |
| 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. | |||
| Mazda 3 2006 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 2006 1.6 engine | |||
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: | 10.9 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.5 metres more than that of the Ford Focus, which means Mazda 3 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`725 | 1`720 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Mazda 3 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Ford Focus, so Mazda 3 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 7.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Ford Focus has
| |