Mazda 3 2013 vs Volvo V40 2015
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 155 HP | 152 HP | |
| Torque: | 201 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 8.3 seconds | |
| Mazda 3 engine produces 3 HP more power than Volvo V40, but torque is 49 NM less than Volvo V40. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.0 | 5.5 | |
|
The Volvo V40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 225 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 1120 km in combined cycle | |
| 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. | |||
| 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 | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.86 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.44 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 14 cm longer than the Volvo V40, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 3 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: | no data | 11.2 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 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
| |