Mazda 3 2013 vs Volvo S60 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 165 HP | 203 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.9 seconds | 8.2 seconds | |
|
Volvo S60 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 38 HP less power than Volvo S60, whereas torque is 90 NM less than Volvo S60. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.2 | 8.7 | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 consumes 2.5 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 375 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 68 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 350'000 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: | 12 years | 1 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 Volvo S80, Volvo XC60, Volvo V60 | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.59 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is smaller. Mazda 3 is 4 cm shorter than the Volvo S60, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 419 litres | 380 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Mazda 3 has 39 litres more trunk space than the Volvo S60. 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: | 10.6 meters | 11.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.7 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 (kg): | 1`815 | 2`060 | |
| Safety: | 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 (€): | 11 600 | 7400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Volvo S60 has
| |