2006 Mazda 3 vs. 2003 MG TF
To start off, 2006 Mazda 3 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 MG TF. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 MG TF would be higher. At 1,598 cc, 2006 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Mazda 3 weights approximately 70 kg more than 2003 MG TF.
Because 2003 MG TF 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 MG TF. 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 MG TF | |
| Make | Mazda | MG |
| Model | 3 | TF |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2003 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Roadster |
| Engine Position | Front | Middle |
| Engine Size | 1598 cc | 1588 cc |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 114 HP |
| Engine Bore Size | 78 mm | 80 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 83.6 mm | 79 mm |
| Acceleration 0-100mph | 11.3 seconds | 10.1 seconds |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1240 kg | 1170 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 3950 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1630 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1270 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2650 mm | 2380 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 8.9 L/100km | 7.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 55 L | 50 L |
