Volvo S40 2004 vs Mazda 3 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.6 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 245 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.5 seconds | 11.3 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo S40 engine produces 26 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 95 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Volvo S40 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 5.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.1 l/100km | 5.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo S40 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo S40 could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo S40 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 1100 km in combined cycle | |
| 1220 km on highway | 1270 km on highway | ||
| 900 km with real consumption | 930 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.47 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.46 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Volvo S40 is 2 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 1 cm wider, while the height of Volvo S40 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 404 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
883 litres | 675 litres | |
| Volvo S40 has 9 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo S40 (by 208 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`940 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Volvo S40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Volvo S40, so Volvo S40 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.6/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S40 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |