Mazda 3 2013 vs Nissan Qashqai 2015
| Body: | Sedan | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.6 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
Nissan Qashqai is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 43 HP less power than Nissan Qashqai, whereas torque is 90 NM less than Nissan Qashqai. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | no data | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 65 litres | |
| 690 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 180 mm (7.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Nissan Qashqai 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 Nissan Qashqai version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. Choose from two 4x4 versions of Nissan Qashqai 2015 if off-road driveability is important to you. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 300'000 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 Mazda 3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 2 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Nissan X-Trail, Nissan Juke, Nissan Pulsar | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan Qashqai 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: | 4.59 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.59 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 21 cm longer than the Nissan Qashqai, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 14 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 408 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1585 litres | |
|
Nissan Qashqai has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mazda 3 has 22 litres less trunk space than the Nissan Qashqai. This could mean that the Mazda 3 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.1 metres less than that of the Nissan Qashqai. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`835 | 1`885 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Qashqai has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 600 | 10 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Nissan Qashqai has
| |