Mitsubishi Lancer 2004 vs Mazda 3 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 98 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Lancer engine produces 52 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 37 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Lancer reaches 100 km/h speed 2.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.3 l/100km | 8.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Lancer is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Lancer consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Lancer over 15,000 km in a year you can save 225 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Lancer consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Lancer gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 14 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Space Star | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mitsubishi Lancer 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. | |||
| Mazda 3 2006 2.0 engine: The engine tends to idle unevenly. Engine problems may also include the thermostat and cooling pump. This engine tends to consume more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.47 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Lancer is smaller. Mitsubishi Lancer is 1 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Lancer is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1285 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Mitsubishi Lancer has 17 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. The Mazda 3 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 10.9 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`750 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 2600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.7/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Lancer has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |