Volvo S40 2002 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Volvo S40) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Mazda 3) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 102 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 215 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Volvo S40 engine produces 3 HP less power than Mazda 3, but torque is 70 NM more than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Volvo S40 reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.6 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo S40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo S40 consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Volvo S40 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 270 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo S40 consumes 2.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1110 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 1420 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 1070 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo S40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| 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: | 4.48 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Volvo S40 is smaller. Volvo S40 is 1 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Volvo S40 is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 471 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
853 litres | 675 litres | |
|
Volvo S40 has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Volvo S40 has 58 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 Volvo S40 (by 178 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo S40 is 0.7 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Volvo S40 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`770 | 1`675 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S40 has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S40 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |