Mazda MX-5 2006 vs Mazda 323 1998
| Body: | Cabrio | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| 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: | 160 HP | 88 HP | |
| Torque: | 188 NM | 132 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 11.8 seconds | |
|
Mazda MX-5 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda MX-5 engine produces 72 HP more power than Mazda 323, whereas torque is 56 NM more than Mazda 323. Thanks to more power Mazda MX-5 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 7.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.6 l/100km | 7.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 323 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda MX-5 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 323, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda MX-5 could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda MX-5 consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 323. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 600 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 323 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda 323) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Mazda MX-5) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | Used also on Mazda Demio | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda MX-5 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda 323 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: | 4.00 m | 4.04 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.26 m | 1.40 m | |
| Mazda MX-5 is 4 cm shorter than the Mazda 323, 2 cm wider, while the height of Mazda MX-5 is 14 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 150 litres | 304 litres | |
|
Mazda 323 has more luggage space. Mazda MX-5 has 154 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 323. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda MX-5 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mazda 323. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`355 | 1`585 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Mazda MX-5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 323 has serious deffects in 410 percent more cases than Mazda MX-5, so Mazda MX-5 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5400 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda MX-5 has
|
Mazda 323 has
| |