Mazda 3 2004 vs Volvo S40 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 245 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.3 seconds | 9.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 26 HP less power than Volvo S40, whereas torque is 95 NM less than Volvo S40. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.0 | 5.6 | |
| 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 0.6 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 90 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 Volvo S40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1100 km in combined cycle | 980 km in combined cycle | |
| 1270 km on highway | 1220 km on highway | ||
| 930 km with real consumption | 900 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.45 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda 3 is 2 cm longer than the Volvo S40, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | 404 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
675 litres | 883 litres | |
| Mazda 3 has 9 litres more trunk space than the Volvo S40. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo S40 (by 208 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`940 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Volvo S40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Volvo S40, so Volvo S40 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 8.6/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |