Compare two cars
Compare any two cars and get our Virtual Adviser™ opinion
Marketing
Dimensons & Outlines
Engine
Performance (manual gearbox)
Performance (automatic gearbox)
Expenses
Virtual Adviser's™ opinion
Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Not only that they both belong to the small family car segment and utilize the same 4-door sedan body style, they are even powered by the same Peugeot-developed diesel engine! There is not much there to point us towards one vehicle or the other. Or is it?
SafetyBoth vehicles got tested by European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), with the same number of safety stars gained in the process. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. Both vehicles belong to the small family car segment, which is generally classifying them somewhere in the middle safety-wise, but that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. Furthermore, when it comes to weight, a factor that most people underestimate, the Swedish car offers a marginal difference of 5% more metal.
ReliabilityI don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Mazda does have a slight advantage, all the models observed together. These are the results of an independent reasearch, while our visitors describe reliability of Volvo with an average rating of 4.6, and models under the Mazda badge with 4.4 out of 5. Independent research findings rank S40 as average reliability-wise, and 3 is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as these two vehicles rank it on average as 4.4 out of 5.
Performance & Fuel economyMazda is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 185 kilometers per hour, 5km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 4.7 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (60 mpg), in combined cycle.
Verdict
Mazda appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In my opinion, everything taken into account, the Swedish car offers slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. From there things take a different direction, with Mazda being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! It's not difficult to say then that if I'd need to make a choice, it would definitely be the Mazda. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. I suggest you spend two more minutes in order to find out which car, based on your needs and budget, would be picked by the virtual adviser™, among more than 12.000 different ones in our database.