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: | 165 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 204 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 45 HP more power than Mazda CX-3, whereas torque is 6 NM more than Mazda CX-3. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 5.9 | |
| Mazda 3 consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-3, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 48 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 970 km on highway | ||
| Mazda 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: | 4.47 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.55 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is larger, but lower. Mazda 3 is 19 cm longer than the Mazda CX-3, 3 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 3 is 10 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
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: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 1`815 kg | 1`690 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`220 kg | 1`155 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 595 kg | 535 kg | |
| Mazda 3 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 10 procentiem more than Mazda CX-3. Therefore, Mazda 3 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| 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 (€): | 7000 | 11 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |