Mazda 3 2004 vs Volvo S40 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 245 NM | 265 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.3 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 5 HP less power than Volvo S40, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Volvo S40. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.0 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.9 l/100km | 5.5 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo S40 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 3 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1100 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 1270 km on highway | 1390 km on highway | ||
| 930 km with real consumption | 1090 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Volvo S40 2002 1.9 engine: Long-lasting and fuel-efficient engine. Maintaining oil change and maintenance intervals is essential for a long engine life, as poor or untimely oil changes can result in turbine and oil pump damage, followed ... More about Volvo S40 2002 1.9 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.41 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is larger. Mazda 3 is 1 cm longer than the Volvo S40, 4 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 3 is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | 471 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
675 litres | 853 litres | |
|
Volvo S40 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 58 litres less trunk space than the Volvo S40. 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 Volvo S40 (by 178 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.7 metres less than that of the Volvo S40, 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: | above average | average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S40 has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 8.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |