Mazda MX-3 1991 vs Mazda MX-5 2006
| Body: | Coupe | Cabrio | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.8 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: | 135 HP | 126 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 NM | 167 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.5 seconds | 9.6 seconds | |
|
Mazda MX-3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda MX-3 engine produces 9 HP more power than Mazda MX-5, but torque is 7 NM less than Mazda MX-5. Thanks to more power Mazda MX-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.0 | 7.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.5 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda MX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda MX-3 consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda MX-5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda MX-3 could require 255 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda MX-3 consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda MX-5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 550 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 700 km on highway | 860 km on highway | ||
| 520 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda MX-5 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 (Mazda MX-5) 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: | 400'000 km | 380'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 16 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda MX-5 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mazda MX-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 MX-5 2006 1.8 engine: The engine often has unstable idling speeds and problems with the thermostat. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.22 m | 4.00 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.31 m | 1.26 m | |
| Mazda MX-3 is 22 cm longer than the Mazda MX-5, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda MX-3 is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 289 litres | 150 litres | |
|
Mazda MX-3 has more luggage capacity. Mazda MX-3 has 139 litres more trunk space than the Mazda MX-5. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda MX-3 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mazda MX-5. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`450 | 1`355 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 5400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda MX-3 has
|
Mazda MX-5 has
| |