2009 Audi R8 vs. 2004 Mazda 3
To start off, 2009 Audi R8 is newer by 5 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 4,163 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Audi R8 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Audi R8 (420 HP @ 7800 RPM) has 260 more horse power than 2004 Mazda 3. (160 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Audi R8 should accelerate faster than 2004 Mazda 3. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Mazda 3 weights approximately 387 kg more than 2009 Audi R8.
Because 2009 Audi R8 is all wheel drive (AWD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2004 Mazda 3. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Audi R8 will offer significantly more control. 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, 2009 Audi R8 (430 Nm) has 227 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Mazda 3. (203 Nm). This means 2009 Audi R8 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Audi R8 | 2004 Mazda 3 | |
| Make | Audi | Mazda |
| Model | R8 | 3 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2004 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Middle | Front |
| Engine Size | 4163 cc | 2260 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 420 HP | 160 HP |
| Engine RPM | 7800 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 430 Nm | 203 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 12.5:1 | 9.7:1 |
| Drive Type | AWD | Front |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 895 kg | 1282 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4440 mm | 4550 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1910 mm | 1760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1260 mm | 1470 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2660 mm | 2650 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 12.4 L/100km | 7.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 19.6 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 15.7 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 90 L | 55 L |
