Audi A3 2016 vs Mazda 3 2019
| Body: | Cabrio | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 190 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 213 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.2 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
Audi A3 is more dynamic to drive. Audi A3 engine produces 40 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 107 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Audi A3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | no data | 6.9 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 51 litres | |
| 640 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 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: | 9 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Audi A4, Audi Q3 | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5, Mazda CX-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 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Mazda 3 2019 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 3 2019 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.42 m | 4.46 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.44 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Audi A3 is 4 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, width is practically the same , while the height of Audi A3 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 320 litres | 295 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
680 litres | 1019 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Audi A3 has 25 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. The Mazda 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 Mazda 3 (by 339 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Audi A3 is 0.3 metres more than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`965 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | low | |
| Audi A3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 100 percent more cases than Audi A3, so Audi A3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | no data | 21 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi A3 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |