Mazda 3 2013 vs Ford Focus 2014
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.0 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 | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 50 HP more power than Ford Focus, whereas torque is 40 NM more than Ford Focus. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.2 | 4.6 | |
|
The Ford Focus is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 240 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 1190 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 1410 km on highway | ||
| Ford Focus gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 350'000 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: | 13 years | 13 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 4 other car models, including Ford C-Max, Ford Fiesta, Ford Tourneo, Ford B-Max | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| 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 | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.47 m | 4.36 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.86 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.48 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 11 cm longer than the Ford Focus, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 362 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1263 litres | 1062 litres | |
| Mazda 3 has 2 litres more trunk space than the Ford Focus. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 201 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.4 metres less than that of the Ford Focus, which means Mazda 3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`835 | 1`900 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Focus has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7000 | 6400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Ford Focus has
| |