Mazda 3 2013 vs Mazda CX-3 2015
| Body: | Hatchback | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 155 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 201 NM | 204 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 9 seconds | |
| Mazda 3 engine produces 35 HP more power than Mazda CX-3, but torque is 3 NM less than Mazda CX-3. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.0 | 5.9 | |
|
The Mazda CX-3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 165 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 48 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 970 km on highway | ||
| Mazda CX-3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| 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: | 4.51 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.55 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 23 cm longer than the Mazda CX-3, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1263 litres | 1260 litres | |
| Mazda 3 has 14 litres more trunk space than the Mazda CX-3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 3 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`690 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda 3 scores higher in safety tests, but Mazda CX-3 is better rated in child safety tests. The Mazda 3 scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 95 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7200 | 11 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |