Mazda 3 2003 vs Ford Focus 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 80 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 124 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 14.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 25 HP more power than Ford Focus, whereas torque is 21 NM more than Ford Focus. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Focus is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 700 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Focus gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Mazda 3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3 | Used also on Ford Fiesta | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mazda 3 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
| 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 | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.45 m | |
| Mazda 3 and Ford Focus are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | 467 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
675 litres | 931 litres | |
|
Ford Focus has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 54 litres less trunk space than the Ford Focus. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Focus (by 256 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.1 metres less than that of the Ford Focus. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`675 | 1`735 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Ford Focus has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 3, so Ford Focus quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Ford Focus has
| |