Skoda Rapid 2012 vs Mazda 3 2011

 
Skoda Rapid
2012 - 2017
Mazda 3
2011 - 2013
Gearbox: ManualManual
Engine: 1.2 Petrol1.6 Petrol
Camshaft drive: Timing chainTiming chain

Performance

Power: 86 HP105 HP
Torque: 160 NM145 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 11.8 seconds12.2 seconds
Skoda Rapid is more dynamic to drive.
Skoda Rapid engine produces 19 HP less power than Mazda 3, but torque is 15 NM more than Mazda 3. Despite less power, Skoda Rapid reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster.

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 5.16.4
Real fuel consumption: 6.2 l/100km7.4 l/100km
The Skoda Rapid is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy.
By specification Skoda Rapid consumes 1.3 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 195 litres of fuel.
By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Skoda Rapid consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3.
Fuel tank capacity: 55 litres55 litres
Full fuel tank distance: 1070 km in combined cycle850 km in combined cycle
1240 km on highway1050 km on highway
880 km with real consumption740 km with real consumption
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 km350'000 km
Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used.
Engine production duration: 5 years16 years
Engine spread: Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Volkswagen Caddy, Skoda Fabia, Audi A1Used 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: yesno
The Skoda Rapid 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.
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 

Dimensions

Length: 4.48 m4.46 m
Width: 1.71 m1.76 m
Height: 1.46 m1.45 m
Skoda Rapid is 2 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Skoda Rapid is 1 cm higher.
Trunk capacity: 550 litres340 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down
1490 litres1360 litres
Skoda Rapid has more luggage capacity.
Skoda Rapid has 210 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Rapid (by 130 litres).
Turning diameter: 10.2 meters10.4 meters
The turning circle of the Skoda Rapid is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mazda 3.
Gross weight (kg): 1`6151`770
Safety: no data
Quality:
above average

high
Mazda 3 has fewer problems.
According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Rapid has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better
Average price (€): 64004600
Pros and Cons: Skoda Rapid has
  • lower fuel consumption
  • more full fuel tank mileage
  • roomier boot
Mazda 3 has
  • more power
  • higher ground clearance
  • fewer faults
  • lower price
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv