Mazda 3 2006 vs Ford Focus 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 260 HP | 145 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 185 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.1 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 115 HP more power than Ford Focus, whereas torque is 195 NM more than Ford Focus. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.7 | 7.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.2 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Focus is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 2.6 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 390 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 2.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 560 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 530 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Focus gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 km | 470'000 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: | 8 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda CX-7 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Ford Mondeo, Ford C-Max | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Ford Focus might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Mazda 3 2006 2.3 engine: Although the engine has a chain, its capacity is quite limited. The engine also requires high quality fuel and tends to use more oil at higher mileages. | |||
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`910 | 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 (€): | 2600 | 1800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.8/10 | 6.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Ford Focus has
| |