Mazda 3 2003 vs Mercedes C class 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 230 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
Mercedes C class is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 58 HP less power than Mercedes C class, whereas torque is 85 NM less than Mercedes C class. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 9.7 | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 consumes 2.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes C class, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 375 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 630 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda 3) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Mercedes C class) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
| Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine: This engine is widely regarded as reliable, though it can develop certain issues over time. One of the most common problems is increased oil consumption, often starting after 120,000 km. This is frequently ... More about Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.43 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda 3 is 4 cm shorter than the Mercedes C class, 3 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 3 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
675 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.5 metres less than that of the Mercedes C class, which means Mazda 3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`675 | 1`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mercedes C class has serious deffects in 85 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mercedes C klase has
| |