Mazda 3 2013 vs Skoda Rapid 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 1.6 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.1 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 45 HP more power than Skoda Rapid, whereas torque is 130 NM more than Skoda Rapid. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.1 | 4.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.9 l/100km | 5.2 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Rapid is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Rapid, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 3 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Rapid. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1240 km in combined cycle | 1270 km in combined cycle | |
| 1410 km on highway | 1480 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 1050 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 136 mm (5.4 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.47 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.46 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 2 cm shorter than the Skoda Rapid, 9 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 3 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 550 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1263 litres | 1490 litres | |
|
Skoda Rapid has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 186 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Rapid. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Rapid (by 227 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`910 | 1`725 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda 3 is better rated in child safety tests. The Mazda 3 scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Rapid has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7800 | 6200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Skoda Rapid has
| |