2004 Mazda 3 vs. 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer
To start off, 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Mazda 3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Mazda 3 would be higher. At 2,260 cc (4 cylinders), 2004 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Mazda 3 (160 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 12 more horse power than 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer. (148 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Mazda 3 should accelerate faster than 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer weights approximately 43 kg more than 2004 Mazda 3.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear wheel drive vehicles. 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, 2004 Mazda 3 (203 Nm) has 5 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer. (198 Nm). This means 2004 Mazda 3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Mazda 3 | 2012 Mitsubishi Lancer | |
| Make | Mazda | Mitsubishi |
| Model | 3 | Lancer |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2260 cc | 2000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 160 HP | 148 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 203 Nm | 198 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1282 kg | 1325 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4550 mm | 4572 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1763 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1491 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2650 mm | 2634 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 7.4 L/100km | 7.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 9.4 L/100km | 9.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 55 L | 59 L |
