Nissan Almera 2002 vs Mazda 3 2007
| Body: | Hatchback | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Double-row 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: | 110 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 238 NM | 360 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.4 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Almera engine produces 33 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 122 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Nissan Almera reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.8 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Almera is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Almera consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Nissan Almera over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Almera consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 1270 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 1030 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan Almera gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 390'000 km | 390'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 3 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Nissan Almera Tino | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 5 | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.20 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.47 m | |
|
Nissan Almera is smaller. Nissan Almera is 29 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Almera is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 355 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1285 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Nissan Almera has 58 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Almera is 0.5 metres less than that of the Mazda 3, which means Nissan Almera can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`800 | 1`925 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Almera has serious deffects in 470 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.2/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Almera has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |