Alfa Romeo 156 2003 vs Mazda 3 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.6 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 275 NM | 245 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 11.3 seconds | |
|
Alfa Romeo 156 is more dynamic to drive. Alfa Romeo 156 engine produces 5 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 30 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Alfa Romeo 156 reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 5.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.1 l/100km | 5.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Alfa Romeo 156 consumes 0.8 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 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Alfa Romeo 156 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1080 km in combined cycle | 1100 km in combined cycle | |
| 1340 km on highway | 1270 km on highway | ||
| 1030 km with real consumption | 930 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.44 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.46 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Alfa Romeo 156 is 5 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Alfa Romeo 156 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 378 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 675 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Alfa Romeo 156 has 35 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Alfa Romeo 156 is 1.3 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 (kg): | 1`770 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Alfa Romeo 156 has serious deffects in 75 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Alfa Romeo 156 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |