Ford Focus 2008 vs Mazda 3 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 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 | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Focus engine produces 50 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 37 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Ford Focus reaches 100 km/h speed 3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 8.2 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Focus is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Focus consumes 1.5 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 225 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Focus consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Focus gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 460'000 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: | 4 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 2006 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: | 4.48 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.47 m | |
| Ford Focus is 1 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 9 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`750 | 1`770 | |
| 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
| |