Mazda CX-3 2014 vs Volvo V40 2014
| 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: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 245 HP | |
| Torque: | 208 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.6 seconds | 6.3 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda CX-3 engine produces 95 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 142 NM less than Volvo V40. Due to the lower power, Mazda CX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 8.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda CX-3 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mazda CX-3 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda CX-3 could require 60 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda CX-3 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 44 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 1050 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 1290 km on highway | ||
| 560 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
|
Mazda CX-3 has 4x4: AWD system delivers 98 percent of power to the front wheels under normal conditions, and up to 50 percent of torque can be shifted to the rear wheels in the event of wheel slip. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Mazda CX-3 2014 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 CX-3 2014 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.86 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, 9 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): | 2`070 | no data | |
| 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 | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo V40 has serious deffects in 70 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 800 | 7800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |