Skoda Rapid 2012 vs Mazda 3 2016
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 86 HP | 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 8.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Skoda Rapid engine produces 79 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 50 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Skoda Rapid reaches 100 km/h speed 3.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 5.8 | |
|
The Skoda Rapid is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Skoda Rapid consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Skoda Rapid over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1070 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| 1240 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| Skoda Rapid gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 136 mm (5.4 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 | 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: | 5 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Volkswagen Caddy, Skoda Fabia, Audi A1 | 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. | |||
| Skoda Rapid 2012 1.2 engine: Although the engine has a chain, its lifespan is relatively low. There tends to be increased vibration at idling speed. Problems with the fuel pressure pump may be the first sign of a petrol smell in the oil. ... More about Skoda Rapid 2012 1.2 engine Mazda 3 2016 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 2016 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.45 m | |
| Skoda Rapid is 1 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Skoda Rapid is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 550 litres | 364 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1490 litres | 1334 litres | |
|
Skoda Rapid has more luggage capacity. Skoda Rapid has 186 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Rapid (by 156 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Rapid is 0.4 metres less than that of the Mazda 3, which means Skoda Rapid can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`615 | 1`815 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Skoda Rapid has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 3, so Skoda Rapid quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 6200 | 9600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Rapid has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |