Ford Focus 2005 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 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: | 225 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.8 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Ford Focus is more dynamic to drive. Ford Focus engine produces 75 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 133 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): | 9.3 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.8 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Focus consumes 1.1 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 165 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Focus consumes 2.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 590 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 500 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 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: | 5 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-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. | |||
| Mazda 3 2003 2.0 engine: The engine tends to idle unevenly. Engine problems may also include the thermostat and cooling pump. This engine tends to consume more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.36 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.46 m | |
| Ford Focus is 13 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 | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Focus is 0.1 metres more than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`860 | 1`745 | |
| 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
| |