Mazda 3 2013 vs Kia Ceed 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 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: | 150 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 186 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 7 HP more power than Kia Ceed, whereas torque is 24 NM more than Kia Ceed. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.2 | 7.6 | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Kia Ceed, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 53 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 850 km on highway | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 400'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5, Mazda CX-3 | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Kia Sportage, Hyundai Sonata, Hyundai Tucson, Hyundai Elantra | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Kia Ceed might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mazda 3 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. | |||
| Mazda 3 2013 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda 3 2013 2.0 engine Kia Ceed 2010 2.0 engine: Relatively reliable engine with a large resource. Can have inherent vibrations and is noisier than a typical petrol engine. Spare parts widely available. May have problems with ignition system and temperature ... More about Kia Ceed 2010 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.47 m | 4.26 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is larger, but slightly lower. Mazda 3 is 21 cm longer than the Kia Ceed, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda 3 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 340 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1263 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 3 has 24 litres more trunk space than the Kia Ceed. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.3 metres more than that of the Kia Ceed. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`835 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | below average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Kia Ceed has serious deffects in 90 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7000 | 3600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Kia Ceed has
| |