2006 Mazda 3 vs. 2010 BMW 120
To start off, 2010 BMW 120 is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Mazda 3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Mazda 3 would be higher. At 1,999 cc, 2006 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 BMW 120 (168 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 18 more horse power than 2006 Mazda 3. (150 HP @ 6500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 BMW 120 should accelerate faster than 2006 Mazda 3.
Because 2010 BMW 120 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 2010 BMW 120. 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. Let's talk about torque, 2010 BMW 120 (340 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 157 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Mazda 3. (183 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2010 BMW 120 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Mazda 3 | 2010 BMW 120 | |
Make | Mazda | BMW |
Model | 3 | 120 |
Year Released | 2006 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1999 cc | 1995 cc |
Horse Power | 150 HP | 168 HP |
Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 183 Nm | 340 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 2000 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4540 mm | 4230 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1440 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1760 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2650 mm | 2670 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 7.6 L/100km | 5.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 55 L | 51 L |