Mazda 3 2006 vs Ford Focus 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.8 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 | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 165 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
Ford Focus is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 20 HP less power than Ford Focus, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Ford Focus. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 7.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.6 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 90 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: | 760 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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: | 16 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3 | Used only for this car | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mazda 3 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 1.6 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 2006 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.46 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.50 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 3 cm longer than the Ford Focus, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | 467 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1285 litres | 872 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 54 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 413 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`710 | 1`810 | |
| 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 (€): | 2200 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 6.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Ford Focus has
| |