Audi A3 2016 vs Mazda 3 2019
| Body: | Cabrio | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 190 HP | 186 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.9 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
Audi A3 is more dynamic to drive. Audi A3 engine produces 4 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 80 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Audi A3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Audi A3 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Audi A3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Audi A3 consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 48 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 790 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
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 | 351 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
645 litres | 1026 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Audi A3 has 31 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 381 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: | 2`055 kg | 2`013 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`555 kg | 1`409 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 500 kg | 604 kg | |
| Audi A3 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 21 procentiem less than Mazda 3. Therefore, Mazda 3 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| 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 | 20 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi A3 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |