Volvo S60 2010 vs Mazda 3 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 203 HP | 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo S60 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo S60 engine produces 38 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 90 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Volvo S60 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 6.2 | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Volvo S60 consumes 2.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo S60 could require 375 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 68 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 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: | 1 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S80, Volvo XC60, Volvo V60 | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5, Mazda CX-3 | |
| 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: | 4.63 m | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Volvo S60 is larger. Volvo S60 is 4 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 7 cm wider, while the height of Volvo S60 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 380 litres | 419 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Volvo S60 has 39 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. This could mean that the Volvo S60 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.3 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo S60 is 0.7 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Volvo S60 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`060 | 1`815 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S60 has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7400 | 11 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S60 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |