Mazda 3 vs Volvo S60: Specs Compared

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 $2,050 for the Volvo S60. That $200 yearly gap compounds to roughly $1,000 over five years and $1,600 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 versus highway split: the Volvo S60 is the stronger commuter at 30 mpg city, while the Mazda 3 pulls ahead on the interstate at 40 mpg highway. If most of your driving is stop-and-go traffic the city figure is the one to weigh; for long-distance highway mileage the reverse is true, and the two vehicles effectively swap places depending on how you drive.

Powertrain choice: the Mazda 3 is recorded with 4 distinct engine configurations (SIDI, SIDI; With Cylinder Deactivation, SIDI; Without Cylinder Deactivation), the Volvo S60 with 4 (SIDI; Mild Hybrid, SIDI; PHEV, 2.0). Across 97 recorded Mazda 3 configurations and 51 for the Volvo S60, 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 Volvo S60 with Front-Wheel Drive, 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 Volvo S60 emits 99 g/mile of CO2 versus 266 g/mile for the Mazda 3. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.