Mazda 3 2003 vs Ford Focus 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 130 HP | |
| Torque: | 187 NM | 178 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 20 HP more power than Ford Focus, whereas torque is 9 NM more than Ford Focus. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 8.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.5 l/100km | 8.6 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 630 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 790 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 480'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Ford Focus engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | Used also on Ford Cougar | |
| 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. | |||
| Mazda 3 2003 2.0 engine: The engine tends to idle unevenly. Engine problems may also include the thermostat and cooling pump. This engine tends to consume more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is larger. Mazda 3 is 11 cm longer than the Ford Focus, 6 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 3 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | 490 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
675 litres | no data | |
|
Ford Focus has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 77 litres less trunk space than the Ford Focus. This could mean that the Mazda 3 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.6 metres less than that of the Ford Focus, which means Mazda 3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`725 | 1`715 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Ford Focus has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 3, so Ford Focus quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 7.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Ford Focus has
| |