Skoda Rapid 2012 vs Mazda 3 2011
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 1.6 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 11 seconds | |
| Skoda Rapid and Mazda 3 have the same engine power, but Skoda Rapid torque is 20 NM less than Mazda 3. Skoda Rapid reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 3.8 | 4.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.3 l/100km | 5.4 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Rapid is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Skoda Rapid consumes 0.5 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 75 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Skoda Rapid consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1440 km in combined cycle | 1270 km in combined cycle | |
| 1660 km on highway | 1440 km on highway | ||
| 1030 km with real consumption | 1010 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.46 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.47 m | |
| Skoda Rapid is 2 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 5 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 550 litres | 340 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1490 litres | 1360 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 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Rapid is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`740 | 1`830 | |
| 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 (€): | 7000 | 5000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Rapid has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |