2006 Mazda 3 vs. 2003 Mercedes-Benz C
To start off, 2006 Mazda 3 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Mercedes-Benz C. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Mercedes-Benz C would be higher. At 2,148 cc (4 cylinders), 2003 Mercedes-Benz C is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Mercedes-Benz C weights approximately 280 kg more than 2006 Mazda 3.
Because 2003 Mercedes-Benz C 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 2003 Mercedes-Benz C. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 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.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Mazda 3 | 2003 Mercedes-Benz C | |
Make | Mazda | Mercedes-Benz |
Model | 3 | C |
Year Released | 2006 | 2003 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1598 cc | 2148 cc |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 141 HP |
Engine Bore Size | 78 mm | 88.1 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 83.6 mm | 88.3 mm |
Acceleration 0-100mph | 11.3 seconds | 10.3 seconds |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1240 kg | 1520 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4530 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1730 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2650 mm | 2760 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 8.9 L/100km | 5.9 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 55 L | 69 L |