Ford Focus 2006 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.6 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: | 125 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 165 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Ford Focus is more dynamic to drive. Ford Focus engine produces 20 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 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.0 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.2 l/100km | 7.8 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 0.2 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 30 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford Focus consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 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 Ford Focus engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-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 2003 1.6 engine: This engine is widely regarded as reliable, though it can develop certain issues over time. One of the most common problems is increased oil consumption, often starting after 120,000 km. This is frequently ... More about Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.34 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.46 m | |
| Ford Focus is 8 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 8 cm wider, while the height of Ford Focus is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 282 litres | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1144 litres | 635 litres | |
| Ford Focus has 18 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Focus (by 509 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Focus is 0.1 metres more than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`795 | 1`695 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Ford Focus has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 3, so Ford Focus quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.8/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Focus has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |