Mazda 3 2009 vs Opel Astra 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 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: | 150 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 187 NM | 155 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 11.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 34 HP more power than Opel Astra, whereas torque is 32 NM more than Opel Astra. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 7.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.9 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
|
The Opel Astra 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 Opel Astra, 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 Opel Astra. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Opel Astra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 160 mm (6.3 inches) | |
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: | 13 years | 17 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | Used also on Opel Mokka | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Mazda 3 2009 2.0 engine: The engine tends to idle unevenly. Engine problems may also include the thermostat and cooling pump. This engine tends to consume more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.46 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.51 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 4 cm longer than the Opel Astra, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 340 litres | 370 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1360 litres | 1235 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 30 litres less trunk space than the Opel Astra. 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 125 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 1 metres less than that of the Opel Astra, which means Mazda 3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`835 | 1`870 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| 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 Opel Astra, so Mazda 3 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 3600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Opel Astra has
| |