Mazda 3 2004 vs Mercedes C class 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 2.1 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 245 NM | 315 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.3 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Mercedes C class is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 33 HP less power than Mercedes C class, whereas torque is 70 NM less than Mercedes C class. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.0 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.9 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 1.7 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 255 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes C class. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1100 km in combined cycle | 920 km in combined cycle | |
| 1270 km on highway | 1210 km on highway | ||
| 930 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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. | |||
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`770 | 1`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mercedes C class has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mercedes C klase has
| |