Skoda Fabia 2004 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Body: | Sedan | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.2 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Skoda Fabia engine produces 35 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 17 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Skoda Fabia reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Fabia is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Skoda Fabia consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Skoda Fabia over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Skoda Fabia consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 580 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 600 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Mazda 3 2003 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: | 4.22 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.65 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Skoda Fabia is smaller. Skoda Fabia is 27 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 11 cm narrower, while the height of Skoda Fabia is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 438 litres | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
789 litres | 635 litres | |
|
Skoda Fabia has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Skoda Fabia has 138 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. The Mazda 3 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Fabia (by 154 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.5 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Skoda Fabia is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`655 | 1`745 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Skoda Fabia has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.4/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Skoda Fabia has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |