Mercedes C class 2000 vs Mazda 3 2004
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.1 Diesel | 1.6 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 315 NM | 245 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 11.3 seconds | |
|
Mercedes C class is more dynamic to drive. Mercedes C class engine produces 33 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 70 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Mercedes C class reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 5.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.2 l/100km | 5.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mercedes C class consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mercedes C class could require 255 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mercedes C class consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 920 km in combined cycle | 1100 km in combined cycle | |
| 1210 km on highway | 1270 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 930 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 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: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda 3) 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 (Mercedes C class) 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.53 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.73 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.46 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mercedes C class is 4 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mercedes C class is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 675 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mercedes C class is 0.5 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Mercedes C class can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`500 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mercedes C class has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mercedes C klase has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |