Volvo V40 2016 vs Mazda 3 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 152 HP | 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.3 seconds | 8.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Volvo V40 engine produces 13 HP less power than Mazda 3, but torque is 40 NM more than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Volvo V40 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 5.8 | |
|
The Volvo V40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Volvo V40 consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Volvo V40 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1120 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| 1370 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Mazda 3 2016 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 2016 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.37 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.45 m | |
| Volvo V40 is 10 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, width is practically the same , while the height of Volvo V40 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 335 litres | 364 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1500 litres | 1334 litres | |
| Volvo V40 has 29 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo V40 (by 166 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo V40 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`965 | 1`815 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | low | |
| Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 13 000 | 10 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V40 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |