Renault Megane 2012 vs Mazda 3 2013
| Body: | Coupe | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 195 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Renault Megane engine produces 10 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 15 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Renault Megane reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 6.2 | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Renault Megane consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Renault Megane could require 210 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 860 km on highway | ||
| Ground clearance: | 120 mm (4.7 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: | 20 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Renault Scenic, Renault Clio, Renault Koleos | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5, Mazda CX-3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| 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 2013 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda 3 2013 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.30 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.45 m | |
| Renault Megane is 17 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, width is practically the same , while the height of Renault Megane is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 344 litres | 364 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1024 litres | 1263 litres | |
| Renault Megane has 20 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 239 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Renault Megane is 0.3 metres more than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`814 | 1`835 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Renault Megane has serious deffects in 110 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7200 | 7000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Mazda 3 has
| |