Ford Focus 2018 vs Mazda 3 2016
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 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: | 125 HP | 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 8.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Focus engine produces 40 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Ford Focus reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | no data | 5.8 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 51 litres | |
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 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: | 13 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Ford Mondeo, Ford C-Max, Ford EcoSport | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5, Mazda CX-3 | |
| 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: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda 3 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 2016 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda 3 2016 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.38 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.83 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.45 m | |
| Ford Focus is 9 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 3 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 375 litres | 364 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1354 litres | 1334 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Ford Focus has 11 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. The Mazda 3 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Focus (by 20 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Focus is 0.4 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Ford Focus can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`900 | 1`815 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | low | |
| Average price (€): | 13 400 | 10 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Focus has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |