Mazda 3 2004 vs Alfa Romeo 156 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 245 NM | 275 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.3 seconds | 10.3 seconds | |
|
Alfa Romeo 156 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 5 HP less power than Alfa Romeo 156, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Alfa Romeo 156. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.0 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.9 l/100km | 6.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Alfa Romeo 156, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Alfa Romeo 156. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1100 km in combined cycle | 1080 km in combined cycle | |
| 1270 km on highway | 1340 km on highway | ||
| 930 km with real consumption | 1030 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.44 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.43 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda 3 is 5 cm longer than the Alfa Romeo 156, 2 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 3 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | 378 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
675 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 3 has 35 litres more trunk space than the Alfa Romeo 156. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 1.3 metres less than that of the Alfa Romeo 156, which means Mazda 3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`770 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | low | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Alfa Romeo 156 has serious deffects in 75 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Alfa Romeo 156 has
| |