2009 Mazda 3 vs. 2008 Toyota Matrix
To start off, 2009 Mazda 3 is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2008 Toyota Matrix. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2008 Toyota Matrix would be higher. At 1,999 cc (4 cylinders), 2009 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda 3 (146 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 20 more horse power than 2008 Toyota Matrix. (126 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda 3 should accelerate faster than 2008 Toyota Matrix. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2008 Toyota Matrix weights approximately 230 kg more than 2009 Mazda 3.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear wheel drive vehicles. 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, 2008 Toyota Matrix (165 Nm @ 4200 RPM) has 30 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda 3. (135 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2008 Toyota Matrix will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Mazda 3 | 2008 Toyota Matrix | |
Make | Mazda | Toyota |
Model | 3 | Matrix |
Year Released | 2009 | 2008 |
Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1999 cc | 1794 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 146 HP | 126 HP |
Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 135 Nm | 165 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 4200 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1125 kg | 1355 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4600 mm | 4360 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1780 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1570 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2650 mm | 2610 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 7.3 L/100km | 7.1 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 9.6 L/100km | 9.1 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 8.4 L/100km | 8.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 50 L | 50 L |