Honda Accord 2001 vs Mazda 3 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 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: | 136 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 175 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.1 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Honda Accord engine produces 14 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 12 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Honda Accord reaches 100 km/h speed 2.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.5 | 7.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 8.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda Accord consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Honda Accord could require 240 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda Accord consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 850 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 670 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: | 9 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.60 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.46 m | |
| Honda Accord is 18 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Honda Accord is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 635 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda Accord is 0.5 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Honda Accord can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`790 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Honda Accord has serious deffects in 470 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda Accord has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |