2005 Mazda 3 vs. 2002 MCC Crossblade

To start off, 2005 Mazda 3 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 MCC Crossblade. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 MCC Crossblade would be higher. At 2,260 cc (4 cylinders), 2005 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Mazda 3 (160 HP) has 90 more horse power than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Mazda 3 should accelerate faster than 2002 MCC Crossblade. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Mazda 3 weights approximately 513 kg more than 2002 MCC Crossblade. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

Because 2002 MCC Crossblade 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 2002 MCC Crossblade. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 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, 2005 Mazda 3 (203 Nm) has 101 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm). This means 2005 Mazda 3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 MCC Crossblade.

Compare all specifications: