Suzuki SX4 2016 vs Mazda CX-3 2018
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 111 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 207 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is a more dynamic driving. Suzuki SX4 engine produces 39 HP less power than Mazda CX-3, whereas torque is 37 NM less than Mazda CX-3. Due to the lower power, Suzuki SX4 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.0 | 6.7 | |
|
The Suzuki SX4 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Suzuki SX4 consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-3, which means that by driving the Suzuki SX4 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 255 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 44 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 940 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 1020 km on highway | 720 km on highway | ||
| Suzuki SX4 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Mazda CX-3 2018: AWD system provides 98% of power to the front under normal conditions and can shift up to 50% of torque to the rear if wheels slip. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 180 mm (7.1 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Suzuki SX4 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 Suzuki SX4 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. Choose from five 4x4 versions of Suzuki SX4 2016 if off-road driveability is important to you. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Suzuki Baleno, Suzuki Swift | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda CX-3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda CX-3 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. | |||
| Mazda CX-3 2018 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 CX-3 2018 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.30 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.59 m | 1.54 m | |
|
Suzuki SX4 is larger. Suzuki SX4 is 3 cm longer than the Mazda CX-3, 2 cm wider, while the height of Suzuki SX4 is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1269 litres | 1260 litres | |
|
Suzuki SX4 has more luggage capacity. Suzuki SX4 has 80 litres more trunk space than the Mazda CX-3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Suzuki SX4 (by 9 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Suzuki SX4 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mazda CX-3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`730 | 1`808 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Mazda CX-3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Suzuki SX4 has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Mazda CX-3, so Mazda CX-3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 15 000 | 17 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Suzuki SX4 has
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |