Mazda MX-3 1994 vs Mercedes CLK 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.3 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: | 110 HP | 193 HP | |
| Torque: | 137 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 8.4 seconds | |
|
Mercedes CLK is a more dynamic driving. Mazda MX-3 engine produces 83 HP less power than Mercedes CLK, whereas torque is 143 NM less than Mercedes CLK. Due to the lower power, Mazda MX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.9 | 9.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 10.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda MX-3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda MX-3 consumes 3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes CLK, which means that by driving the Mazda MX-3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 450 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda MX-3 consumes 2.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes CLK. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 830 km on highway | 830 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 590 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda MX-3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda MX-3) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Mercedes CLK) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 520'000 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 Mercedes CLK engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda Xedos 6, Kia RIO, Kia Cerato, Kia Carens | Used also on Mercedes SLK | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda MX-3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.22 m | 4.57 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.31 m | 1.37 m | |
|
Mazda MX-3 is smaller. Mazda MX-3 is 35 cm shorter than the Mercedes CLK, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda MX-3 is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 135 litres | 420 litres | |
|
Mercedes CLK has more luggage space. Mazda MX-3 has 285 litres less trunk space than the Mercedes CLK. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda MX-3 is 0.9 metres less than that of the Mercedes CLK, which means Mazda MX-3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`430 | 1`850 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda MX-3 has
|
Mercedes CLK has
| |