Mazda 3 2009 vs Skoda Octavia 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 155 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.2 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
|
Skoda Octavia is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 11 HP less power than Skoda Octavia, whereas torque is 10 NM less than Skoda Octavia. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
| By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.3 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 45 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 1050 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 140 mm (5.5 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: | 350'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Audi A3 | |
| 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 Skoda Octavia 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. | |||
| Skoda Octavia 2004 1.6 engine: Owners of vehicles with this engine often report difficulties starting in cold weather. Carbon buildup tends to cause sticking in the intake valves, throttle body, and EGR valve, leading to performance ... More about Skoda Octavia 2004 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.46 m | 4.57 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is smaller, but slightly higher. Mazda 3 is 11 cm shorter than the Skoda Octavia, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 340 litres | 560 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1360 litres | no data | |
|
Skoda Octavia has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 220 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Octavia. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Skoda Octavia. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`770 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Octavia has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Skoda Octavia has
| |