Mazda 3 2011 vs Opel Astra 2012
| 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 | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 230 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.2 seconds | 8.5 seconds | |
|
Opel Astra is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 75 HP less power than Opel Astra, whereas torque is 85 NM less than Opel Astra. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 6.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.4 l/100km | 8.9 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 Opel Astra, 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 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Opel Astra. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 1050 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 620 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| 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 | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Opel Insignia | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
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`965 | |
| 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 (€): | 4800 | 5000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Opel Astra has
| |