Ford Focus 2008 vs Mazda 3 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.3 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: | 80 HP | 84 HP | |
| Torque: | 124 NM | 122 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.2 seconds | 14.9 seconds | |
|
Ford Focus is more dynamic to drive. Ford Focus engine produces 4 HP less power than Mazda 3, but torque is 2 NM more than Mazda 3. Despite less power, Ford Focus reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
By specification Ford Focus consumes 0.1 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 15 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford Focus consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 330'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Fiesta | 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. | |||
| Mazda 3 2006 1.4 engine: The engine is generally robust, but the use of poor-quality fuel can lead to increased burn formation. Idling speeds tend to be unstable. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.47 m | |
| Ford Focus is 1 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 7 cm wider, while the height of Ford Focus is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 537 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
931 litres | 1285 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Ford Focus has 124 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 Mazda 3 (by 354 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Focus is 0.3 metres less than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`735 | 1`715 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Focus has serious deffects in 55 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 2600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.8/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Focus has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |