Mazda CX-3 2014 vs Mazda 3 2013
| 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 | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.7 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda CX-3 engine produces 30 HP more power than Mazda 3, the torque is the same for both cars. Thanks to more power Mazda CX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 5.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.3 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda CX-3 consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda CX-3 could require 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda CX-3 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 44 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 1180 km on highway | ||
| 600 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.46 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is smaller, but higher. Mazda CX-3 is 19 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-3 is 10 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 364 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1260 litres | 1263 litres | |
| Mazda CX-3 has 14 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 3 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`860 | 1`815 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda 3 scores higher in safety tests. The Mazda 3 scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 95 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 13 600 | 7600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |