Opel Astra 2001 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Body: | Cabrio | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 101 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Opel Astra engine produces 4 HP less power than Mazda 3, but torque is 5 NM more than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Opel Astra reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.1 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.3 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Opel Astra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Astra consumes 0.1 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 15 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Astra consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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: | 5 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Opel Zafira, Opel Vectra, Opel Meriva | 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 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: | 4.27 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Opel Astra is smaller. Opel Astra is 15 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Opel Astra is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 330 litres | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 635 litres | |
|
Opel Astra has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Opel Astra has 30 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. The Mazda 3 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Astra is 0.7 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Opel Astra can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| 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`695 | 1`695 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Astra has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2400 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.5/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Astra has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |