Mazda 3 2011 vs Volvo S60 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Volvo S60 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 48 HP less power than Volvo S60, whereas torque is 130 NM less than Volvo S60. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.3 | 4.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.4 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S60, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 67 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1270 km in combined cycle | 1390 km in combined cycle | |
| 1440 km on highway | 1630 km on highway | ||
| 1010 km with real consumption | 930 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 136 mm (5.4 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda 3 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Mazda 3 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.58 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is smaller. Mazda 3 is 5 cm shorter than the Volvo S60, 11 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 380 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 1749 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, The Volvo S60 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.9 metres less than that of the Volvo S60, which means Mazda 3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`815 kg | 2`110 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`240 kg | 1`667 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 575 kg | 443 kg | |
| Mazda 3 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 23 procentiem more than Volvo S60. Therefore, Mazda 3 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S60 has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5400 | 10 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Volvo S60 has
| |