Mazda 3 2012 vs Opel Astra 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| 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: | 185 HP | 160 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 25 HP more power than Opel Astra, whereas torque is 50 NM more than Opel Astra. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 4.9 | |
|
The Opel Astra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. 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. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 1140 km in combined cycle | |
| 1220 km on highway | 1360 km on highway | ||
| Opel Astra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 150 mm (5.9 inches) | 160 mm (6.3 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: | 380'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda CX-7 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Zafira, Opel Insignia | |
| 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 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: | 4.49 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.51 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 7 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`965 | 2`065 | |
| Safety: | no data | 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 | 3600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Opel Astra has
| |