Mazda 3 vs Subaru WRX: Specs Compared
Also searched as Subaru WRX vs Mazda 3 specs — both orientations show this same side-by-side comparison.
The Mazda 3 is the more efficient of the two: it reaches 33 mpg combined versus 24 mpg for the Subaru WRX, a 9 mpg advantage and costs about $1,300 less per year to fuel.
Across 5 measured categories, the Mazda 3 leads in 5. Figures are EPA test data, not manufacturer claims.
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | Mazda 3 | Subaru WRX |
|---|---|---|
| Best combined MPG | 33 mpg ✓ | 24 mpg |
| Best city MPG | 30 mpg ✓ | 21 mpg |
| Best highway MPG | 40 mpg ✓ | 28 mpg |
| Lowest annual fuel costEPA estimate at 15,000 miles per year | $1,850 ✓ | $3,150 |
| Lowest CO2 output | 266 g/mi ✓ | 374 g/mi |
| Engines offered | SIDI, SIDI; With Cylinder Deactivation, SIDI; Without Cylinder Deactivation, SIDI; with i-ELOOP Technology Package | SIDI, 2.5 |
| Transmissions | Automatic (S6), Manual 6-spd | Manual 6-spd, Automatic (AV-S8) |
| Drivetrains | 4-Wheel Drive, Front-Wheel Drive | All-Wheel Drive |
| Fuel types | Regular | Premium |
| EPA class | Midsize Cars | Compact Cars |
| Years covered | 2015–2026 | 2015–2026 |
| Configurations on record | 97 | 32 |
Source: EPA fuel economy records via fueleconomy.gov. Best-case values across all recorded configurations for each model.
Mazda 3 vs Subaru WRX: what the numbers mean
Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Mazda 3 burns about $1,850 of fuel annually against $3,150 for the Subaru WRX. That $1,300 yearly gap compounds to roughly $6,500 over five years and $10,400 over eight — often more than the price difference between two trims of the same vehicle, and the single largest running-cost line item separating these two.
City and highway economy: the Mazda 3 leads in both cycles — 30 mpg city and 40 mpg highway against 21 and 28 mpg — so its fuel-efficiency advantage holds whether you commute in traffic or cover long highway miles.
Powertrain choice: the Mazda 3 is recorded with 4 distinct engine configurations (SIDI, SIDI; With Cylinder Deactivation, SIDI; Without Cylinder Deactivation), the Subaru WRX with 2 (SIDI, 2.5). Across 97 recorded Mazda 3 configurations and 32 for the Subaru WRX, the wider the engine spread the more the real-world fuel efficiency depends on which version you actually buy, so check the specific model year and drivetrain rather than the headline number.
Drivetrain and class: the Mazda 3 is offered with 4-Wheel Drive, Front-Wheel Drive, the Subaru WRX with All-Wheel Drive. All-wheel drive typically costs one to two mpg combined against the same vehicle in front- or rear-wheel drive, which is worth remembering when the gap between these two is small. The EPA classes them as Midsize Cars and Compact Cars respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.
Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the Mazda 3 emits 266 g/mile of CO2 versus 374 g/mile for the Subaru WRX. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.
3 vs WRX: common questions
Which is better on gas, the Mazda 3 or the Subaru WRX?
The Mazda 3 is the more efficient of the two: it reaches 33 mpg combined versus 24 mpg for the Subaru WRX, a 9 mpg advantage and costs about $1,300 less per year to fuel.
Which costs less to run per year?
By EPA estimates at 15,000 miles a year, the Mazda 3 runs about $1,850 a year in fuel at its most efficient configuration, versus about $3,150 for the Subaru WRX — a difference of roughly $1,300 per year.
What engines do the 3 and WRX offer?
Mazda 3: SIDI, SIDI; With Cylinder Deactivation, SIDI; Without Cylinder Deactivation, SIDI; with i-ELOOP Technology Package. Subaru WRX: SIDI, 2.5.
Are they in the same vehicle class?
The EPA classifies the Mazda 3 as Midsize Cars and the Subaru WRX as Compact Cars, so they aren't a like-for-like match on size.
More 3 comparisons
More WRX comparisons
Comparison id: mazda-3-vs-subaru-wrx