Mazda 3 2009 vs Ford Focus 2011
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| 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 | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 187 NM | 159 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 25 HP more power than Ford Focus, whereas torque is 28 NM more than Ford Focus. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.0 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Focus is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 1.9 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 285 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 2.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 1140 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Focus gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | Used also on 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. Mazda 3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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. Ford Focus 2011 1.6 engine: The engine boasts a simple and reliable design. After 100,000 km, piston knocking is a common issue. Electromagnetic Ti-VCT valves often develop leaks, and high-voltage wires frequently disconnect. The engine ... More about Ford Focus 2011 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is smaller. Mazda 3 is 4 cm shorter than the Ford Focus, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 475 litres | |
|
Ford Focus has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 45 litres less trunk space than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.6 metres less than that of the Ford Focus, which means Mazda 3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`770 | 1`825 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Ford Focus scores higher in safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | high | low | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Focus has serious deffects in 75 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 4000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Ford Focus has
| |