Mazda 3 2011 vs Opel Astra 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.2 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Opel Astra is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 35 HP less power than Opel Astra, whereas torque is 55 NM less than Opel Astra. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.4 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Opel Astra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.9 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 135 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 1050 km on highway | 1210 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
| Opel Astra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 165 mm (6.5 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Opel Astra 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 Opel Astra version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
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 Opel Astra engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Opel Zafira, Opel Meriva, Opel Insignia, Opel Mokka | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Opel Astra might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Opel Astra 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 | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.51 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 4 cm longer than the Opel Astra, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 6 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 | 11.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 1.1 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`770 | 1`885 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Astra has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5000 | 5000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Opel Astra has
| |