Mazda 3 2013 vs Volvo V40 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 104 HP | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 144 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.6 seconds | 8.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 76 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 96 NM less than Volvo V40. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 5.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.5 | 6.4 | |
| Mazda 3 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 15 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 960 km in combined cycle | |
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 133 mm (5.2 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 | 280'000 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 Mazda 3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo V60 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.47 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.44 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 10 cm longer than the Volvo V40, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda 3 is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 335 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1263 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 3 has 29 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.6 metres less than that of the Volvo V40, which means Mazda 3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`920 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Volvo V40 scores higher in safety tests, butMazda 3 is better rated in child safety tests. The Volvo V40 scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7000 | 8200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |