Opel Astra 2007 vs Mazda 3 2009
| Body: | Cabrio | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 180 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.5 seconds | 12.2 seconds | |
|
Opel Astra is more dynamic to drive. Opel Astra engine produces 75 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 85 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Opel Astra reaches 100 km/h speed 2.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 6.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.7 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Astra consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Astra could require 240 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Astra consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 650 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| 810 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 590 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 122 mm (4.8 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda 3 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Mazda 3 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Opel Insignia | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.46 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.47 m | |
|
Opel Astra is larger, but lower. Opel Astra is 2 cm longer than the Mazda 3, width is practically the same , while the height of Opel Astra is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 205 litres | 340 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
440 litres | 1360 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Opel Astra has 135 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. This could mean that the Opel Astra uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 920 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Astra is 0.6 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`975 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Mazda 3 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Opel Astra, so Mazda 3 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 3800 | 4200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Astra has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |