Volvo C70 2009 vs Mazda MX-5 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 160 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 188 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.1 seconds | 7.6 seconds | |
| Volvo C70 engine produces 10 HP more power than Mazda MX-5, whereas torque is 42 NM more than Mazda MX-5. Despite the higher power, Volvo C70 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.0 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.7 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda MX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo C70 consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda MX-5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo C70 could require 210 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo C70 consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda MX-5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 840 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 590 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volvo C70) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Mazda MX-5) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 510'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volvo C70 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S40, Volvo V50, Volvo C30 | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda 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 MX-5 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volvo C70 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.62 m | 4.02 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.26 m | |
|
Volvo C70 is larger. Volvo C70 is 59 cm longer than the Mazda MX-5, 12 cm wider, while the height of Volvo C70 is 15 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 200 litres | 150 litres | |
|
Volvo C70 has more luggage capacity. Volvo C70 has 50 litres more trunk space than the Mazda MX-5. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo C70 is 1.8 metres more than that of the Mazda MX-5, which means Volvo C70 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`070 | 1`375 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 10 000 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo C70 has
|
Mazda MX-5 has
| |