Mazda 3 2006 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.6 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: | 84 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 122 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.9 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 2003 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 2006 engine produces 21 HP less power than Mazda 3 2003, whereas torque is 23 NM less than Mazda 3 2003. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 2006 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 2006 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 2006 consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3 2003, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 2006 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 2006 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3 2003. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 2006 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 420'000 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 Mazda 3 2003 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 2 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 3 2003 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda 3 2003 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
| Mazda 3 2006 1.4 engine: The engine is generally robust, but the use of poor-quality fuel can lead to increased burn formation. Idling speeds tend to be unstable. Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine: This engine is widely regarded as reliable, though it can develop certain issues over time. One of the most common problems is increased oil consumption, often starting after 120,000 km. This is frequently ... More about Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.46 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda 3 2006 and Mazda 3 2003 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1285 litres | 675 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 2006 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mazda 3 2003, which means Mazda 3 2006 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`715 | 1`675 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 2600 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |