Mazda 3 2013 vs Skoda Rapid 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 1.6 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.1 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 35 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 1.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.1 | 3.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.9 l/100km | 5.3 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Rapid is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Rapid, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 45 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.6 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 | 1440 km in combined cycle | |
| 1410 km on highway | 1660 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 1030 km with real consumption | ||
| Skoda Rapid 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) | 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 | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.4 metres more than that of the Skoda Rapid, which means Mazda 3 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`910 | 1`740 | |
| 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
| |