Mazda CX-3 2015 vs Volvo V40 2012
| 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: | 1.5 Diesel | 1.6 Diesel | |
| 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: | 105 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 12.3 seconds | |
| Mazda CX-3 engine produces 10 HP less power than Volvo V40, the torque is the same for both cars. Despite less power, Mazda CX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.7 | 3.6 | |
|
The Volvo V40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda CX-3 consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda CX-3 could require 165 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 44 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 930 km in combined cycle | 1720 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 1820 km on highway | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
|
Mazda CX-3 has 4x4: AWD system delivers 98 percent of power to the front wheels under normal conditions, and up to 50 percent of torque can be shifted to the rear wheels in the event of wheel slip. | |||
| 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 560'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volvo V40 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 3, Mazda 2 | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo S40, Volvo V60 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Volvo V40 2012 1.6 engine: The main issues reported by owners are frequent oil and coolant leaks. The Siemens fuel system with piezo injectors is highly sensitive to fuel quality, requiring the use of high-grade diesel to avoid ... More about Volvo V40 2012 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.80 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, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-3 is 12 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): | 1`800 | 1`890 | |
| 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
| |