Chrysler Neon 1999 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | 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: | 133 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 177 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.8 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Chrysler Neon engine produces 17 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 10 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Chrysler Neon reaches 100 km/h speed 3.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.8 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.5 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chrysler Neon consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chrysler Neon could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chrysler Neon consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 530 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 670 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 440 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Chrysler Stratus, Dodge Neon | 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Chrysler Neon engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
| Mazda 3 2003 2.0 engine: The engine tends to idle unevenly. Engine problems may also include the thermostat and cooling pump. This engine tends to consume more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.39 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Chrysler Neon is smaller. Chrysler Neon is 10 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Chrysler Neon is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 370 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 675 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Chrysler Neon has 43 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chrysler Neon is 0.5 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Chrysler Neon can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`600 kg | 1`725 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler Neon has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |