2000 AC Aceca vs. 2010 Mazda 3
To start off, 2010 Mazda 3 is newer by 10 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 AC Aceca. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 AC Aceca would be higher. At 3,504 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 AC Aceca is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 AC Aceca (346 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 198 more horse power than 2010 Mazda 3. (148 HP @ 3500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 AC Aceca should accelerate faster than 2010 Mazda 3.
Because 2000 AC Aceca is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2000 AC Aceca. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Mazda 3, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2000 AC Aceca (400 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 40 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Mazda 3. (360 Nm @ 1800 RPM). This means 2000 AC Aceca will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
2000 AC Aceca | 2010 Mazda 3 | |
Make | AC | Mazda |
Model | Aceca | 3 |
Year Released | 2000 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3504 cc | 2184 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 346 HP | 148 HP |
Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 3500 RPM |
Torque | 400 Nm | 360 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 1800 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4640 mm | 4590 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1755 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1471 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2300 mm | 2639 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 90 L | 55 L |