Skoda Octavia 2009 vs Mazda 3 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 102 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 148 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.3 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Skoda Octavia engine produces 48 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 62 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Skoda Octavia reaches 100 km/h speed 3.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 6.2 | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Skoda Octavia consumes 1.2 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 180 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 860 km on highway | ||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Seat Altea, Seat Leon | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5, Mazda CX-3 | |
| 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. | |||
| Mazda 3 2013 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda 3 2013 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.57 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.45 m | |
| Skoda Octavia is 11 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Skoda Octavia is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 560 litres | 364 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1350 litres | 1263 litres | |
|
Skoda Octavia has more luggage capacity. Skoda Octavia has 196 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Octavia (by 87 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Octavia is 0.4 metres less than that of the Mazda 3, which means Skoda Octavia can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`895 | 1`835 | |
| Safety: | 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 | 7000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Octavia has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |