Skoda Rapid 2012 vs Mazda 3 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 8.1 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Skoda Rapid engine produces 45 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 130 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Skoda Rapid reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.3 | 4.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.2 l/100km | 5.9 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Rapid is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Skoda Rapid consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Skoda Rapid could require 30 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Skoda Rapid consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1270 km in combined cycle | 1240 km in combined cycle | |
| 1480 km on highway | 1410 km on highway | ||
| 1050 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
| 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. | |||
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 2 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 | 1263 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 227 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`725 | 1`910 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda 3 is better rated in child safety tests. The Mazda 3 scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Rapid has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7000 | 7800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Rapid has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |