Mazda 3 2013 vs Ford Focus 2014
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.5 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: | 100 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.8 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
Ford Focus is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 50 HP less power than Ford Focus, whereas torque is 90 NM less than Ford Focus. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 930 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 1170 km on highway | ||
| 790 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 330'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 2 | Used also on Ford C-Max | |
| 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
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`800 | 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
| |