Toyota Corolla 2001 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 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: | 97 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 130 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Toyota Corolla engine produces 8 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 15 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Toyota Corolla reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Corolla is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Toyota Corolla consumes 0.1 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 15 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Toyota Corolla consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
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: | 10 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Toyota Auris | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3, Kia RIO, Kia Cerato, Kia Carens | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.38 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Toyota Corolla is smaller, but slightly higher. Toyota Corolla is 12 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Toyota Corolla is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 473 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 675 litres | |
|
Toyota Corolla has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Toyota Corolla has 60 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. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 10.3 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`655 | 1`675 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Toyota Corolla has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably better | ||
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.4/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Corolla has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |