Mazda 3 2011 vs Skoda Rapid 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 175 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.2 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
Skoda Rapid is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 and Skoda Rapid have the same engine power, but Mazda 3 torque is 30 NM less than Skoda Rapid. Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.4 l/100km | 6.3 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Rapid is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Rapid, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 150 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 Skoda Rapid. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 1050 km on highway | 1190 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 870 km with real consumption | ||
| Skoda Rapid gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 136 mm (5.4 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 | 330'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 14 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Skoda Fabia, Seat Altea, Skoda Yeti | |
| 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 Rapid 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 Rapid 2012 1.2 engine: Although the engine has a chain, its lifetime is relatively short. Vibration at idling speed tends to be excessive. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.46 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.46 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 2 cm shorter than the Skoda Rapid, 5 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 3 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 340 litres | 550 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1360 litres | 1490 litres | |
|
Skoda Rapid has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 210 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Rapid. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Rapid (by 130 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 Rapid. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`770 | 1`635 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Rapid has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5000 | 6200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Skoda Rapid has
| |