Mazda 3 2006 vs BMW 3 series 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 38 HP less power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 45 NM less than BMW 3 series. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 8.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 120 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 3 consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 980 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 1210 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW 3 series gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Ground clearance: | 160 mm (6.3 inches) | 144 mm (5.7 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda 3 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Mazda 3 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 350'000 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 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3, Kia RIO, Kia Cerato, Kia Carens | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 1 sērija | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is smaller, but higher. Mazda 3 is 4 cm shorter than the BMW 3 series, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | 460 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1285 litres | no data | |
|
BMW 3 series has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 47 litres less trunk space than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.1 metres less than that of the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`710 | 1`910 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2400 | 5800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 7.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |