Mazda 3 2013 vs Volvo S60 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 165 HP | 245 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.9 seconds | 6.3 seconds | |
|
Volvo S60 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 80 HP less power than Volvo S60, whereas torque is 140 NM less than Volvo S60. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.2 | 6.0 | |
| Mazda 3 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S60, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 30 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 67 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 1420 km on highway | ||
| Volvo S60 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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`070 | |
| 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 | 11 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Volvo S60 has
| |