Citroen C5 2001 vs Mazda 3 2011
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 138 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 191 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
| Citroen C5 engine produces 12 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 1 NM less than Mazda 3. Despite less power, Citroen C5 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.4 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.7 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Citroen C5 consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Citroen C5 could require 255 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Citroen C5 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 66 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 1030 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 670 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: | 3 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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 Citroen C5 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 2011 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: | 4.76 m | 4.46 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.47 m | |
|
Citroen C5 is larger. Citroen C5 is 30 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 2 cm wider, while the height of Citroen C5 is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 340 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1360 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Citroen C5 is 1 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Citroen C5 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`500 | 1`835 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen C5 has serious deffects in 475 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 5000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Citroen C5 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |