Volvo S40 2007 vs Mazda 3 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Volvo S40 engine produces 40 HP less power than Mazda 3, but torque is 53 NM more than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Volvo S40 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.9 | 7.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.6 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo S40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo S40 consumes 3 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 450 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo S40 consumes 3.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1060 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 1230 km on highway | 850 km on highway | ||
| 920 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo S40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S80, Volvo V50, Volvo C30 | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | |
| 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: | yes | no | |
| The Volvo S40 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: | 4.48 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.47 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Volvo S40 is 1 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 2 cm wider, while the height of Volvo S40 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 404 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
883 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Volvo S40 has 26 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo S40 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Volvo S40 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| 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`890 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S40 has serious deffects in 50 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4600 | 3600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S40 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |