BMW 5 series 1985 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Body: | Sedan | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 129 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 174 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. BMW 5 series engine produces 21 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 13 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, BMW 5 series reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.3 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 5 series consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW 5 series could require 150 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 5 series consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 670 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW 5 series gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda 3) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW 5 series) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on BMW 3 sērija | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.62 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.46 m | |
| BMW 5 series is 13 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 6 cm narrower, while the height of BMW 5 series is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 460 litres | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 635 litres | |
|
BMW 5 series has more luggage capacity. BMW 5 series has 160 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 5 series is 0.7 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means BMW 5 series can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`780 | 1`745 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 5 sērija has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |