Ford Focus 2014 vs Mazda 3 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 Petrol | 1.5 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 | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 11.7 seconds | |
|
Ford Focus is more dynamic to drive. Ford Focus engine produces 5 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Ford Focus reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.9 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 7.3 l/100km | |
|
By specification Ford Focus consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Ford Focus over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford Focus consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1120 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| 720 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Focus gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 km | 350'000 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: | 12 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Ford Mondeo, Ford C-Max, Ford EcoSport | Used also on Mazda 2 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Ford Focus 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.36 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.86 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.45 m | |
| Ford Focus is 11 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 6 cm wider, while the height of Ford Focus is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 362 litres | 364 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1062 litres | 1263 litres | |
| Ford Focus has 2 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 201 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 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Focus has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7600 | 7800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Focus has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |