Mazda CX-3 2014 vs Ford EcoSport 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 112 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 140 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 14.1 seconds | |
| Mazda CX-3 engine produces 38 HP more power than Ford EcoSport, whereas torque is 70 NM more than Ford EcoSport. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | no data | 6.3 | |
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 180 mm (7.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Ford EcoSport 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 Ford EcoSport version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5 | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda CX-3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mazda CX-3 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.27 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.65 m | |
| Mazda CX-3 and Ford EcoSport are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 350 litres | 333 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1260 litres | 1238 litres | |
| Mazda CX-3 has 17 litres more trunk space than the Ford EcoSport. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-3 (by 22 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`735 | |
| Safety: | |||
| The Mazda CX-3 scores 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 Ford EcoSport has serious deffects in 75 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 14 000 | 10 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Ford EcoSport has
| |