Volvo V40 2016 vs Mazda 3 2016
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 152 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.3 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo V40 engine produces 32 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 100 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Volvo V40 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 7.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo V40 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo V40 could require 15 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo V40 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1050 km in combined cycle | 870 km in combined cycle | |
| 1210 km on highway | 1040 km on highway | ||
| 810 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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: | 324 litres | 364 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1500 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Volvo V40 has 40 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| 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: | no data | 1`835 kg | |
| 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 (€): | 11 200 | 9800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V40 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |