Mazda 3 2006 vs Ford Focus 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.4 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 | 80 HP | |
| Torque: | 122 NM | 124 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.9 seconds | 14.2 seconds | |
|
Ford Focus is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 4 HP more power than Ford Focus, but torque is 2 NM less than Ford Focus. Despite the higher power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 7.7 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 15 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, 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: | 820 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 2 | Used also on Ford Fiesta | |
| 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 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.50 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 1 cm longer than the Ford Focus, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | 537 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1285 litres | 931 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 124 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. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 354 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.3 metres more than that of the Ford Focus. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`715 | 1`735 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | low | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Focus has serious deffects in 55 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2600 | 1800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 6.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Ford Focus has
| |