Volkswagen T-Roc 2017 vs Mazda CX-3 2014
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 200 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.1 seconds | 8.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda CX-3 is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen T-Roc engine produces 35 HP less power than Mazda CX-3, whereas torque is 10 NM less than Mazda CX-3. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen T-Roc reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 7.3 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen T-Roc is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen T-Roc consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-3, which means that by driving the Volkswagen T-Roc over 15,000 km in a year you can save 195 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen T-Roc consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 44 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 1110 km on highway | 800 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen T-Roc gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 161 mm (6.3 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Mazda CX-3 2014 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 2014 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.23 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.57 m | 1.55 m | |
| Volkswagen T-Roc is 4 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-3, 5 cm wider, while the height of Volkswagen T-Roc is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 445 litres | 350 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1290 litres | 1260 litres | |
|
Volkswagen T-Roc has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Volkswagen T-Roc has 95 litres more trunk space than the Mazda CX-3. The Mazda CX-3 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volkswagen T-Roc (by 30 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen T-Roc is 0.5 metres more than that of the Mazda CX-3, which means Volkswagen T-Roc can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`780 | 1`860 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Volkswagen T-Roc has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda CX-3 has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Volkswagen T-Roc, so Volkswagen T-Roc quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 19 600 | 12 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen T-Roc has
|
Mazda CX-3 has
| |