Honda Accord 2003 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 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: | 155 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.6 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Honda Accord is more dynamic to drive. Honda Accord engine produces 50 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 45 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Honda Accord reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.5 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda Accord consumes 0.5 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 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda Accord consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 1040 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Honda Accord 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: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda CR-V, Honda FR-V, Honda Stream | 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Honda Accord 2003 2.0 engine: In 2001, Honda introduced the K-series engine lineup, featuring an aluminum block with an open-deck design and cast-iron cylinder liners. It utilizes a port fuel injection system, a 16-valve aluminum cylinder head without hydraulic lifters, individual ignition coils, a VTC cam ... More about Honda Accord 2003 2.0 engine 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: | 4.66 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.46 m | |
| Honda Accord is 17 cm longer than the Mazda 3, width is practically the same , while the height of Honda Accord is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 459 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 675 litres | |
|
Honda Accord has more luggage capacity. Honda Accord has 46 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda Accord is 0.7 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: | 1`920 kg | 1`675 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`320 kg | 1`165 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 600 kg | 510 kg | |
| Honda Accord load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 15 procentiem more than Mazda 3. Therefore, Honda Accord is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Honda Accord has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda Accord has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |