Mazda 3 2009 vs Audi A3 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.2 seconds | 8.3 seconds | |
|
Audi A3 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 65 HP less power than Audi A3, whereas torque is 205 NM less than Audi A3. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 5.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Audi A3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.6 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 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi A3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 960 km in combined cycle | |
| 1050 km on highway | 1220 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 850 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi A3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Audi A3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Sharan, Skoda Superb | |
| 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: | 4.46 m | 4.29 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.42 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 17 cm longer than the Audi A3, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda 3 is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 340 litres | 370 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1360 litres | 1104 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 30 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 Mazda 3 (by 256 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.3 metres less than that of the Audi A3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`770 | 1`940 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Audi A3 scores higher in safety tests. The Audi A3 scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Mazda 3 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Audi A3, so Mazda 3 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 6200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Audi A3 has
| |