Mazda 3 2007 vs Audi A3 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 360 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
| Mazda 3 engine produces 3 HP more power than Audi A3, whereas torque is 40 NM more than Audi A3. Despite the higher power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Audi A3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi A3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi A3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 1190 km on highway | ||
| 830 km with real consumption | 910 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi A3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 160 mm (6.3 inches) | 113 mm (4.4 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda 3 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Mazda 3 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 390'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 5 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Audi A6, Audi A4 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Audi A3 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 | 4.29 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.42 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 13 cm longer than the Audi A3, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda 3 is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 300 litres | 370 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
635 litres | 1120 litres | |
|
Audi A3 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 70 litres less trunk space than the Audi A3. 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 Audi A3 (by 485 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Audi A3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`945 | 1`940 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Audi A3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Audi A3, so Audi A3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Audi A3 has
| |