Ford Focus 2008 vs Mazda 3 2006
| 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: | 10.4 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 0.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
By specification Ford Focus consumes 0.6 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 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, 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: | 700 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
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 2006 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 2006 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.46 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.47 m | |
| Ford Focus is 3 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 8 cm wider, while the height of Ford Focus is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 467 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
872 litres | 1285 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Ford Focus has 54 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 413 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 10.9 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`810 | 1`710 | |
| 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
| |