Ford Focus 2001 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Ford Focus is more dynamic to drive. Ford Focus engine produces 10 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 15 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Ford Focus reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.5 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Focus consumes 0.3 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 45 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Focus consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 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 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: | 4.38 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Ford Focus is smaller. Ford Focus is 11 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Focus is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 490 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 675 litres | |
|
Ford Focus has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Ford Focus has 77 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. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Focus is 0.6 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`655 | 1`675 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Focus has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.4/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Focus has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |