Mazda 3 2013 vs Ford Focus 2014
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.0 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: | 165 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.9 seconds | 11.1 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 40 HP more power than Ford Focus, whereas torque is 40 NM more than Ford Focus. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.2 | 4.8 | |
|
The Ford Focus is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 consumes 1.4 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 210 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 1140 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 1300 km on highway | ||
| Ford Focus 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 | 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: | 13 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5, Mazda CX-3 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Ford Mondeo, Ford C-Max, Ford EcoSport | |
| 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: | 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. | |||
| Mazda 3 2013 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda 3 2013 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.59 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.86 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.48 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 5 cm longer than the Ford Focus, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 419 litres | 374 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 3 has 45 litres more trunk space than the Ford Focus. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.4 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`815 | 1`900 | |
| Safety: | |||
| The Mazda 3 scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Focus has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 600 | 8000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Ford Focus has
| |