Ford Focus 2014 vs Mazda 3 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.0 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: | 100 HP | 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.6 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Focus engine produces 65 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Ford Focus reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.8 | 6.2 | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Focus consumes 3.6 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 540 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 560 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 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 Mazda 3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Ford C-Max, Ford Fiesta, Ford Tourneo, Ford B-Max | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5, Mazda CX-3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| 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 2013 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda 3 2013 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.53 m | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.86 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.45 m | |
| Ford Focus is 5 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 6 cm wider, while the height of Ford Focus is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 374 litres | 419 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Ford Focus has 45 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| 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`815 | |
| Safety: | |||
| The Mazda 3 scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| 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 (€): | 8200 | 11 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Focus has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |