Skoda Octavia 2004 vs Mazda 3 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 155 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 12.7 seconds | |
|
Skoda Octavia is more dynamic to drive. Skoda Octavia engine produces 11 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 10 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Skoda Octavia reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 7.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 8.7 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Octavia is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Skoda Octavia consumes 1.2 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 180 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Skoda Octavia consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 850 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
| Skoda Octavia gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 140 mm (5.5 inches) | 160 mm (6.3 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 | 420'000 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: | 4 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Audi A3 | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3, Kia RIO, Kia Cerato, Kia Carens | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.57 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Skoda Octavia is larger. Skoda Octavia is 15 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 1 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 560 litres | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 635 litres | |
|
Skoda Octavia has more luggage capacity. Skoda Octavia has 260 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Octavia is 0.7 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): | no data | 1`750 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Octavia has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 1800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Octavia has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |