SAAB 9-3 1998 vs Mazda 3 2006
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 177 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. SAAB 9-3 engine produces 20 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 10 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, SAAB 9-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.1 | 7.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.1 l/100km | 8.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification SAAB 9-3 consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the SAAB 9-3 could require 180 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, SAAB 9-3 consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 68 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 740 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 850 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| SAAB 9-3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a SAAB 9-3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including SAAB 9000, SAAB 900 | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | |
| 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: | yes | no | |
| The SAAB 9-3 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 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: | 4.63 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.46 m | |
| SAAB 9-3 is 21 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 5 cm narrower, while the height of SAAB 9-3 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 635 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.5 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the SAAB 9-3 is 0.4 metres less than that of the Mazda 3, which means SAAB 9-3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`600 | 1`790 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data SAAB 9-3 has serious deffects in 645 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.8/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
SAAB 9-3 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |