Mazda 3 2013 vs Volvo S60 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 165 HP | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.9 seconds | 9 seconds | |
| Mazda 3 engine produces 15 HP less power than Volvo S60, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Volvo S60. Despite less power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.2 | 6.8 | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 consumes 0.6 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 90 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 67 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 980 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 1240 km on highway | ||
| Volvo S60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 280'000 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 | 6 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 5 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo V40, Volvo V60 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| 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 | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is smaller. Mazda 3 is 5 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 | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1749 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`030 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Volvo S60 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 3, so Volvo S60 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 600 | 11 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Volvo S60 has
| |