Volvo S40 2007 vs Mazda 3 2011
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 165 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 12.2 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo S40 engine produces 20 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Volvo S40 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.2 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo S40 consumes 0.9 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 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo S40 consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 740 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. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 135 mm (5.3 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda 3 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Mazda 3 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 460'000 km | 350'000 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 Volvo S40 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo V50, Volvo C30 | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.47 m | |
| Volvo S40 is 10 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`850 | 1`745 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S40 has serious deffects in 75 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 5200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S40 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |