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: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Mazda 3) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Mazda CX-3) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 204 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 30 HP more power than Mazda CX-3, whereas torque is 176 NM more than Mazda CX-3. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.8 | 5.8 | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 consumes 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 150 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 48 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1060 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 1240 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) | |
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 |
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 (kg): | 1`930 | 1`730 | |
| 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
| |