Mazda 323 1998 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Body: | Hatchback | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 88 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 132 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.2 seconds | 12.4 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 323 engine produces 17 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 13 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Mazda 323 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.4 | 7.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.6 l/100km | 9.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 323 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mazda 323 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 323 could require 90 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 323 consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 650 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 850 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 590 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda Demio | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3 | |
| 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. | |||
| Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine: This engine is widely regarded as reliable, though it can develop certain issues over time. One of the most common problems is increased oil consumption, often starting after 120,000 km. This is frequently ... More about Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.04 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Mazda 323 is smaller. Mazda 323 is 45 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 323 is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 304 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 675 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Mazda 323 has 109 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 323 is 0.5 metres less than that of the Mazda 3, which means Mazda 323 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`700 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 323 has serious deffects in 345 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 323 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |