Opel Astra 2007 vs Mazda 3 2009
| Body: | Cabrio | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 200 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 262 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.9 seconds | 9.1 seconds | |
|
Opel Astra is more dynamic to drive. Opel Astra engine produces 50 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 75 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Opel Astra reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.5 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.9 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Astra consumes 2.1 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 315 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Astra consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 710 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 520 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 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: | 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. | |||
| Mazda 3 2009 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: | 4.48 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, if possible |
440 litres | 1360 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, 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: | 1`975 kg | 1`800 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`505 kg | 1`270 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 470 kg | 530 kg | |
| Opel Astra load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 13 procentiem less than Mazda 3. Therefore, Mazda 3 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Astra has serious deffects in 195 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3000 | 3000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Astra has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |