Volvo S60 2013 vs Mazda 3 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 245 HP | 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.3 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo S60 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo S60 engine produces 80 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 140 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Volvo S60 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 6.2 | |
| Volvo S60 consumes 0.2 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 30 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 67 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1110 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 1420 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| 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. | |||
| Mazda 3 2013 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda 3 2013 2.0 engine | |||
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 5 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 | |
| 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`070 | 1`815 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Volvo S60 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 3, so Volvo S60 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 000 | 11 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S60 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |