Mazda 3 2013 vs Volvo V40 2016
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.1 seconds | 8.4 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 and Volvo V40 have the same engine power, but Mazda 3 torque is 60 NM more than Volvo V40. Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.1 | 3.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.9 l/100km | 5.4 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo V40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.5 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 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1240 km in combined cycle | 1720 km in combined cycle | |
| 1410 km on highway | 1820 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 1140 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.47 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.44 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 10 cm longer than the Volvo V40, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda 3 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 335 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1263 litres | 1500 litres | |
| Mazda 3 has 29 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V40. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo V40 (by 237 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Volvo V40. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`910 | 1`980 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| 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 (€): | 7800 | 11 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |