Mazda 3 2013 vs Skoda Octavia 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 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: | 150 HP | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 148 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | 12.3 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 48 HP more power than Skoda Octavia, whereas torque is 62 NM more than Skoda Octavia. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.2 | 7.4 | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Octavia, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 8 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 2 other car models, including Seat Altea, Seat Leon | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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 | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.47 m | 4.57 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.44 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 11 cm shorter than the Skoda Octavia, 3 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 3 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 560 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1263 litres | 1350 litres | |
|
Skoda Octavia has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 196 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Octavia. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Octavia (by 87 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.4 metres more than that of the Skoda Octavia, which means Mazda 3 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`835 | 1`895 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Octavia has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7000 | 4000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Skoda Octavia has
| |