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: | 210 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 6.3 seconds | |
| Mazda CX-3 engine produces 95 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 140 NM less than Volvo V40. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | no data | 5.9 | |
| 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. Note, however, that this Mazda CX-3 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. Choose from three 4x4 versions of Mazda CX-3 2014 if off-road driveability is important to you. | |||
| 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): | no data | 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
| |