Toyota Corolla 2002 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| 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: | 192 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 180 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.4 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Toyota Corolla is more dynamic to drive. Toyota Corolla engine produces 87 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 35 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Toyota Corolla reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.3 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.7 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Toyota Corolla consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Toyota Corolla could require 165 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota Corolla consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 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 Mazda 3 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Toyota Celica | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3 | |
| 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: | 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 2003 1.6 engine: This engine is widely regarded as reliable, though it can develop certain issues over time. One of the most common problems is increased oil consumption, often starting after 120,000 km. This is frequently ... More about Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.18 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Toyota Corolla is smaller, but slightly higher. Toyota Corolla is 24 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Toyota Corolla is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 635 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Corolla is 0.1 metres less than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`200 | 1`695 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Toyota Corolla has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Toyota Corolla, so Toyota Corolla quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Corolla has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |