Skoda Octavia 2009 vs Mazda 3 2011
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 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: | 102 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 148 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.3 seconds | 12.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Skoda Octavia engine produces 3 HP less power than Mazda 3, but torque is 3 NM more than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Skoda Octavia reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Skoda Octavia consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Skoda Octavia could require 150 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Skoda Octavia consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 740 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Seat Altea, Seat Leon | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Skoda Octavia 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.57 m | 4.46 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Skoda Octavia is larger, but slightly lower. Skoda Octavia is 11 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 2 cm wider, while the height of Skoda Octavia is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 560 litres | 340 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1350 litres | 1360 litres | |
| Skoda Octavia has 220 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 10 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Octavia is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`895 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Octavia has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4000 | 4800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Octavia has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |