Two significantly similar cars, no doubt about that. Still, each one has something different to offer. Having both cars powered by petrol engines and utilizing the 4-door sedan body style within the same 'Small family car' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (4 x 4 for the Volvo and front in the case of the Mazda). The first one has a Volvo-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 5-cylinder, 20-valves 230hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 150hp engine designed by Mazda.

Both vehicles got tested by European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), with the same number of safety stars gained in the process. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. Both vehicles belong to the small family car segment, which is generally classifying them somewhere in the middle safety-wise, but it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. Furthermore, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Swedish car offers a considerable difference of 18% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Mazda does have a slight advantage, at least on all of the models level. These are the official statistics, 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 the Swedish car rank it on average as 5.0 out of 5, exactly the same as the other one.

Volvo is way more agile, reaching 100km/h in 3.3 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 230 kilometers per hour, 18km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy an obvious choice would be the Japanese car, averaging around 6.8 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (42 mpg), in combined cycle. That's 41% difference compared to the Swedish car!

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 significantly better overall protection, taking the lead here. It all continues in the same direction, with Volvo outracing its opponent in any situation possible, making it better choice for boy racers. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... It's really tough to make a final decision here, but if I'd need to, I'd say Mazda. Nevertheless, let's not forget that people have different preferences and needs, so what really counts is your personal feel. I'm only here to help. Also, you could use the oportunity to find out which car, everything taken into account, would be the perfect choice for you in the eyes of the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.