Skoda Octavia 2017 vs Mazda 3 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.5 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: | 150 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
|
Skoda Octavia is more dynamic to drive. Skoda Octavia engine produces 30 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 100 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Skoda Octavia reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.9 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 7.0 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Octavia is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Skoda Octavia consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Skoda Octavia over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Skoda Octavia consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1020 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| 1190 km on highway | 1040 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Skoda Octavia gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 140 mm (5.5 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda 3 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Mazda 3 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Audi A4, Volkswagen Golf | 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. Skoda Octavia might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Skoda Octavia 2017 1.4 engine: One of the most notorious issues with this engine series is excessive oil consumption caused by stuck piston rings. Another common problem is the actuator of the turbocharger’s wastegate, which is prone to ... More about Skoda Octavia 2017 1.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.67 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Skoda Octavia is larger. Skoda Octavia is 20 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 1 cm wider, while the height of Skoda Octavia is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 590 litres | 364 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1580 litres | no data | |
|
Skoda Octavia has more luggage capacity. Skoda Octavia has 226 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.5 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Octavia is 0.1 metres less than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`819 | 1`835 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Octavia has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 000 | 10 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Octavia has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |