Nissan Micra 2008 vs Mazda 3 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 80 HP | 84 HP | |
| Torque: | 110 NM | 122 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 17.9 seconds | 14.9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Micra engine produces 4 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 12 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Nissan Micra reaches 100 km/h speed 3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Micra is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Nissan Micra consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Nissan Micra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Micra consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 46 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 330'000 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 Mazda 3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 23 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Mazda 2 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Mazda 3 2006 1.3 engine: The engine is generally robust, but the use of poor-quality fuel can lead to increased burn formation. Idling speeds tend to be unstable. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.72 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.54 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Nissan Micra is smaller, but higher. Nissan Micra is 70 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Micra is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 251 litres | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
584 litres | 635 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Nissan Micra has 49 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 51 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.2 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Micra is 1.7 metres less than that of the Mazda 3, which means Nissan Micra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`490 | 1`715 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Micra has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Micra has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |