Audi A3 2013 vs Mazda 3 2013

Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison

 
Audi A3
2013 - 2016
Mazda 3
2013 - 2016
Body: CabrioHatchback
Gearbox: Manual/AutomaticManual/Automatic
Wheel drive type: Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4)Front wheel drive (FWD)
Audi A3 is available with front wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive, while Mazda 3 can be equipped only with front wheel drive.
Engines: 1.4 - 2.01.5 - 2.5

Performance

Power: 110 - 184 HP100 - 187 HP
Torque: 200 - 380 NM144 - 380 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 7.6 - 11.4 seconds8.1 - 13.6 seconds
In general, Audi A3 are available with more powerful and dynamic engines than Mazda 3. Select a car version for a more accurate comparison!

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 3.9 - 6.64.1 - 7.6
Audi A3 petrol engines consumes on average 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than Mazda 3. On average, a Audi A3 with diesel engines consumes about the same amount of fuel per 100 km as a Mazda 3.
This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version!
Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy.

Dimensions

Length: 4.42 m4.47 m
Width: 1.79 m1.79 m
Height: 1.41 m1.45 m
Audi A3 is 5 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, width is practically the same , while the height of Audi A3 is 5 cm lower.
Trunk capacity: 320 litres364 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down, if possible
678 litres1263 litres
Mazda 3 has more luggage space.
Audi A3 has 44 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 585 litres).
Turning diameter: 10.9 meters10.6 meters
The turning circle of the Audi A3 is 0.3 metres more than that of the Mazda 3.
Gross weight: ~ 1`936 kg~ 1`864 kg
Net weight:~ 1`442 kg~ 1`251 kg
Load capacity:~ 494 kg~ 613 kg
Audi A3 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 24 procentiem less than Mazda 3. Therefore, Mazda 3 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads.
Safety: no data
Quality:
high

above average
Average price (€): no data7000
Pros and Cons: Audi A3 has
  • available with 4x4 drive
  • more powerful and dynamic engines
  • lower fuel consumption
  • fewer faults
Mazda 3 has
  • roomier boot
  • higher carrying (cargo) capacity
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv