Alfa Romeo 156 2002 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 165 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 206 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Alfa Romeo 156 is more dynamic to drive. Alfa Romeo 156 engine produces 60 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 61 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Alfa Romeo 156 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.6 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.7 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Alfa Romeo 156 consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Alfa Romeo 156 could require 210 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Alfa Romeo 156 consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 250'000 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 Mazda 3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Alfa Romeo GT, Alfa Romeo Spider, Alfa Romeo GTV | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine: This engine is widely regarded as reliable, though it can develop certain issues over time. One of the most common problems is increased oil consumption, often starting after 120,000 km. This is frequently ... More about Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.43 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Alfa Romeo 156 is smaller. Alfa Romeo 156 is 6 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Alfa Romeo 156 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 380 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 675 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Alfa Romeo 156 has 33 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Alfa Romeo 156 is 0.8 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Alfa Romeo 156 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`770 kg | 1`675 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Alfa Romeo 156 has serious deffects in 130 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Alfa Romeo 156 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |