Mazda 3 2011 vs Skoda Octavia 2009
| 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 | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 148 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.2 seconds | 12.3 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 3 HP more power than Skoda Octavia, but torque is 3 NM less than Skoda Octavia. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.4 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 1 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 150 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 Skoda Octavia. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 1050 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Seat Altea, Seat Leon | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.46 m | 4.57 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.44 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 | 1350 litres | |
| Mazda 3 has 220 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Octavia. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 10 litres). | |||
| 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 | 1`895 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Octavia has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5200 | 4800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Skoda Octavia has
| |