SAAB 9-3 1998 vs Mazda 3 2007
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 260 NM | 360 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.9 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. SAAB 9-3 engine produces 28 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 100 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, SAAB 9-3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.2 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
By specification SAAB 9-3 consumes 0.2 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 30 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, SAAB 9-3 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 68 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1090 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 1470 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 1000 km with real consumption | 830 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: | 420'000 km | 390'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 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. | |||
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`945 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data SAAB 9-3 has serious deffects in 100 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
| |