Ford Fiesta 1999 vs Mazda Demio 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 63 HP | |
| Torque: | 103 NM | 103 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.4 seconds | 14 seconds | |
|
Mazda Demio is a more dynamic driving. Ford Fiesta engine produces 3 HP less power than Mazda Demio, the torque is the same for both cars. Due to the lower power, Ford Fiesta reaches 100 km/h speed 2.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 7.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 6.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda Demio is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Ford Fiesta consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda Demio, which means that by driving the Ford Fiesta over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford Fiesta consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda Demio. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 40 litres | 43 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 570 km in combined cycle | 610 km in combined cycle | |
| 670 km on highway | 710 km on highway | ||
| 560 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda Demio gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 18 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford KA | Used also on Mazda 121 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda Demio might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda Demio 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.83 m | 3.82 m | |
| Width: | 1.63 m | 1.65 m | |
| Height: | 1.32 m | 1.54 m | |
| Ford Fiesta is 1 cm longer than the Mazda Demio, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Fiesta is 22 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 250 litres | 330 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
930 litres | 1298 litres | |
|
Mazda Demio has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Ford Fiesta has 80 litres less trunk space than the Mazda Demio. This could mean that the Ford Fiesta uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda Demio (by 368 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.9 meters | 9.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Fiesta is 0.7 metres more than that of the Mazda Demio, which means Ford Fiesta can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`460 | 1`450 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mazda Demio has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Fiesta has serious deffects in 95 percent more cases than Mazda Demio, so Mazda Demio quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Fiesta has
|
Mazda Demio has
| |