Opel Astra 2010 vs Mazda 3 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 155 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.7 seconds | 11.7 seconds | |
| Opel Astra engine produces 11 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 10 NM more than Mazda 3. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.4 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Opel Astra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Astra consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Opel Astra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 90 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Astra consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 790 km in combined cycle | |
| 1090 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Opel Astra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 160 mm (6.3 inches) | 160 mm (6.3 inches) | |
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: | 17 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Opel Mokka | 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 2006 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 2006 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.42 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.51 m | 1.46 m | |
| Opel Astra and Mazda 3 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 370 litres | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1235 litres | 635 litres | |
|
Opel Astra has more luggage capacity. Opel Astra has 70 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Opel Astra (by 600 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Astra is 0.5 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Opel Astra can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`870 | 1`725 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Astra has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.3/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Astra has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |