Mazda CX-3 2015 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: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 204 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 9 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): | 5.8 | 6.2 | |
|
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 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 970 km on highway | 860 km on highway | ||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Mazda 3 2013 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 3 2013 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.47 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`730 | 1`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 (€): | 12 400 | 7000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-3 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |