Skoda Octavia 2000 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.4 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Skoda Octavia is more dynamic to drive. Skoda Octavia engine produces 45 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 65 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Skoda Octavia reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.6 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Skoda Octavia consumes 0.7 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 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Skoda Octavia consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 700 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 | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf, Audi A4, Audi A3 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Skoda Octavia 2000 1.8 engine: The weakest link in this engine is the turbine, whose failure is contributed to by a faulty catalytic converter. The oil pump and chain tensioner also tend to have problems. Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine: This engine is widely regarded as reliable, though it can develop certain issues over time. One of the most common problems is increased oil consumption, often starting after 120,000 km. This is frequently ... More about Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.51 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.73 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.46 m | |
| Skoda Octavia is 9 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Skoda Octavia is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 635 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Octavia is 0.5 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Skoda Octavia can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| 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): | no data | 1`695 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Mazda 3 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Skoda Octavia, so Mazda 3 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 5.3/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Octavia has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |