Ford Focus 2004 vs Mazda 3 2007
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 155 NM | 360 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.8 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Focus engine produces 28 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 205 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Ford Focus reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Ford Focus consumes 0.4 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 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Focus consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 1070 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 390'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford C-Max | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.34 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.46 m | |
| Ford Focus is 8 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 8 cm wider, while the height of Ford Focus is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 385 litres | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1247 litres | 635 litres | |
|
Ford Focus has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Ford Focus has 85 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 612 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Focus is 0.5 metres less than that of the Mazda 3, which means Ford Focus can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`720 | 1`945 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Mazda 3 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Ford Focus, so Mazda 3 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.8/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Focus has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |