Mitsubishi Carisma 2000 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 137 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15 seconds | 12.4 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Carisma engine produces 5 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 8 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Carisma reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.3 | 8.0 | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Carisma could require 45 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 800 km on highway | ||
| Mitsubishi Carisma gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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: | 15 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Lancer | 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. Mazda 3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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: | 4.48 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.46 m | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma is 6 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Carisma is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1150 litres | 635 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Carisma has more luggage capacity. Mitsubishi Carisma has 130 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Carisma (by 515 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Carisma is 0.1 metres more than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`715 | 1`720 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Carisma has serious deffects in 115 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Carisma has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |