Mazda 3 2006 vs Ford Focus 2008
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.5 seconds | 13.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 5 HP more power than Ford Focus, but torque is 5 NM less than Ford Focus. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 7.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.7 l/100km | 8.6 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.1 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 15 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 3 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 460'000 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 | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3, Kia RIO, Kia Cerato, Kia Carens | 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.50 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 1 cm longer than the Ford Focus, 8 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`730 | 1`750 | |
| 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 (€): | 2400 | 1800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 6.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Ford Focus has
| |