Mitsubishi Carisma 1997 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 174 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.4 seconds | 12.4 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma engine produces 20 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 29 NM more than Mazda 3. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.3 l/100km | 9.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Carisma over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 800 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 590 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Carisma gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 420'000 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 Mazda 3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 23 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volvo V40, Volvo S40, Mitsubishi Galant | 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. Mitsubishi Carisma might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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 |
660 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 25 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`685 | 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
| |