Mazda 3 2013 vs Volvo V40 2015
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 152 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.9 seconds | 8.3 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 32 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Volvo V40. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 5.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 7.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 1120 km in combined cycle | |
| 770 km with real consumption | 880 km with real consumption | ||
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.46 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.86 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.44 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 9 cm longer than the Volvo V40, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 1 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): | 1`815 | no data | |
| 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
| |