Mazda CX-3 2015 vs Mazda 3 2013

 
Mazda CX-3
2015 - 2018
Mazda 3
2013 - 2016
Body: Crossover / SUVHatchback
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: AutomaticAutomatic
Engine: 2.0 Petrol2.0 Petrol

Performance

Power: 120 HP150 HP
Torque: 204 NM210 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 9.9 seconds9 seconds
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving.
Mazda CX-3 engine produces 30 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 6 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Mazda CX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later.

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 5.86.2
The Mazda CX-3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy.
Mazda CX-3 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Mazda CX-3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel.
Fuel tank capacity: 48 litres51 litres
Full fuel tank distance: 820 km in combined cycle820 km in combined cycle
970 km on highway860 km on highway
Ground clearance: 155 mm (6.1 inches)155 mm (6.1 inches)

Dimensions

Length: 4.28 m4.47 m
Width: 1.77 m1.80 m
Height: 1.55 m1.45 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 litres364 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down
1260 litres1263 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 meters10.6 meters
Gross weight (kg): 1`7301`835
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 (€): 14 0007800
Pros and Cons: Mazda CX-3 has
  • lower fuel consumption
  • fewer faults
Mazda 3 has
  • more power
  • more dynamic
  • higher safety
  • better safety assist technologies
  • lower price
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv