Ford Focus 2001 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 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: | 130 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 178 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.3 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Focus engine produces 20 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 9 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Ford Focus reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.6 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.6 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
By specification Ford Focus consumes 0.4 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 60 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: | 630 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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: | 6 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Cougar | 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 2003 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: | 4.38 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`715 | 1`725 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above 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 (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.4/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Focus has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |