Mazda 3 2009 vs Chevrolet Cruze 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Mazda 3) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Chevrolet Cruze) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| 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: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 187 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Chevrolet Cruze is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 and Chevrolet Cruze have the same engine power, but Mazda 3 torque is 133 NM less than Chevrolet Cruze. Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.0 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Chevrolet Cruze is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Cruze, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 315 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 Chevrolet Cruze. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 1030 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 880 km with real consumption | ||
| Chevrolet Cruze gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 530'000 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 Chevrolet Cruze engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Chevrolet Captiva, Opel Antara, Chevrolet Epica | |
| 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: | no | yes | |
| The Chevrolet Cruze 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 2009 2.0 engine: The engine tends to idle unevenly. Engine problems may also include the thermostat and cooling pump. This engine tends to consume more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.60 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is smaller. Mazda 3 is 11 cm shorter than the Chevrolet Cruze, 3 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 450 litres | |
| Mazda 3 has 20 litres less trunk space than the Chevrolet Cruze. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`770 | 1`930 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | low | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Chevrolet Cruze has serious deffects in 220 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 3600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Chevrolet Cruze has
| |