Volvo S60 2013 vs Mazda 3 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Volvo S60) 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: | 163 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 10.3 seconds | |
|
Volvo S60 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo S60 engine produces 43 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 190 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Volvo S60 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.8 | 5.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.2 l/100km | 7.0 l/100km | |
|
By specification Volvo S60 consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Volvo S60 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Volvo S60 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 67 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1390 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 1630 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| 930 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo S60 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: | 136 mm (5.4 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.63 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Volvo S60 is larger. Volvo S60 is 5 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 9 cm wider, while the height of Volvo S60 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 380 litres | 419 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1749 litres | no data | |
|
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`110 | 1`835 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 9200 | 11 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S60 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |