Compare two cars
Compare any two cars and get our Virtual Adviser™ opinion
Dimensons & Outlines
Check vehicle history
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?
SafetyA starting point here would be to take a look at the results from European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) tests which were performed on both of the cars, with the same number of safety stars gained in the process. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. Both vehicles belong to the small family car segment, which is generally classifying them somewhere in the middle safety-wise, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? Furthermore, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, 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. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Volvo with an average rating of 3.2, and models under the Mazda badge with 4.4 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed S40 as average reliability-wise, and 3 is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain 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 offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! I believe that, when we take all into account, we have only one winner here - the 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. In case you have two minutes to spare I invite you to define your needs, desires and budget and see which car would be chosen by the virtual adviser™, among more than 12.000 different ones in our database.