Ford Focus 2014 vs Mazda 3 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 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: | 182 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.6 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
|
Ford Focus is more dynamic to drive. Ford Focus engine produces 82 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 90 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Ford Focus reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 5.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.3 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Focus consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Focus could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Focus consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 930 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 1170 km on highway | 1180 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 790 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 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: | 4 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford C-Max | 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. 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. | |||
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 | 1`800 | |
| 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
| |