Mazda 3 2003 vs Mitsubishi Carisma 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 137 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 12.1 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 5 HP more power than Mitsubishi Carisma, whereas torque is 8 NM more than Mitsubishi Carisma. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 7.2 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| Mitsubishi Carisma gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3 | Used also on Mitsubishi Lancer | |
| 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 | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.40 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is larger. Mazda 3 is 1 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Carisma, 5 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 3 is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | 460 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
675 litres | 460 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 47 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Carisma. This could mean that the Mazda 3 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 215 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 Mitsubishi Carisma. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`675 | 1`630 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Carisma has serious deffects in 115 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mitsubishi Carisma has
| |