Mazda 3 2009 vs Ford Focus 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| 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 | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.2 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
|
Ford Focus is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 5 HP more power than Ford Focus, but torque is 5 NM less than Ford Focus. Despite the higher power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 7.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 1050 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 460'000 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 Ford Focus engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 4 years | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.46 m | 4.34 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.50 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 12 cm longer than the Ford Focus, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 340 litres | 396 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1360 litres | 1247 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 56 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 Mazda 3 (by 113 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Ford Focus. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`770 | 1`710 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | low | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Focus has serious deffects in 75 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Ford Focus has
| |