Nissan Almera 2003 vs Mazda 3 2003
| 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 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 304 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Almera engine produces 14 HP less power than Mazda 3, but torque is 117 NM more than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Nissan Almera reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Almera is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Almera consumes 2.3 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 345 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Almera consumes 2 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 | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 920 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan Almera gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Nissan X-Trail, Nissan Primera, Nissan Almera Tino | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-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. | |||
| Mazda 3 2003 2.0 engine: The engine tends to idle unevenly. Engine problems may also include the thermostat and cooling pump. This engine tends to consume more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.20 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.46 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 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 355 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1020 litres | 675 litres | |
| Nissan Almera has 58 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Almera (by 345 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Almera is 0.1 metres more than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`810 | 1`725 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Nissan Almera has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 9.2/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Almera has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |