Peugeot 308 2011 vs Mazda CX-3 2015
| Body: | Hatchback | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 98 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 136 NM | 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.7 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is a more dynamic driving. Peugeot 308 engine produces 7 HP less power than Mazda CX-3, whereas torque is 134 NM less than Mazda CX-3. Due to the lower power, Peugeot 308 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 4.7 | |
|
The Mazda CX-3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Peugeot 308 consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Peugeot 308 could require 240 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 44 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 950 km in combined cycle | 930 km in combined cycle | |
| 1170 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Mazda CX-3 2014: 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Mazda 3, 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 CX-3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.55 m | |
|
Peugeot 308 is larger, but lower. Peugeot 308 and Mazda CX-3 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 348 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1201 litres | 1260 litres | |
| Peugeot 308 has 2 litres less trunk space than the Mazda CX-3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-3 (by 59 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Peugeot 308 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mazda CX-3. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`780 | 1`800 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Peugeot 308 has serious deffects in 620 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 12 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Peugeot 308 has
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |