Ford Focus 2005 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 80 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 124 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.2 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Focus engine produces 25 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 21 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Ford Focus reaches 100 km/h speed 3.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Focus is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Focus consumes 0.6 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 90 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Focus consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Focus 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: | 6 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Fiesta | 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 2003 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 2003 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.46 m | |
| Ford Focus and Mazda 3 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 467 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
931 litres | 675 litres | |
|
Ford Focus has more luggage capacity. Ford Focus has 54 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Focus (by 256 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`735 | 1`675 | |
| Safety: | no data | 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 (€): | 1200 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Focus has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |