Mazda CX-3 2014 vs Volvo V40 2012
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Body: | Crossover / SUV | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Mazda CX-3 is available with front wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive, while Volvo V40 can be equipped only with front wheel drive. | |||
| Engines: | 1.5 - 2.0 | 1.6 - 2.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 - 150 HP | 115 - 254 HP | |
| Torque: | 204 - 270 NM | 220 - 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.7 - 11.9 seconds | 6.3 - 12.3 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.0 - 6.4 | 3.2 - 9.0 | |
|
Mazda CX-3 petrol engines consumes on average 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than Volvo V40. On average, Mazda CX-3 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 133 mm (5.2 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda CX-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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is smaller, but higher. Mazda CX-3 is 9 cm shorter than the Volvo V40, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-3 is 11 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 335 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1260 litres | no data | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Mazda CX-3 has 15 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V40. The Volvo V40 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 | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-3 is 0.6 metres less than that of the Volvo V40, which means Mazda CX-3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`814 | ~ 1`976 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Volvo V40 scores higher in safety tests, butMazda CX-3 is better rated in child safety tests. The Volvo V40 scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 11 800 | 7800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |