Mazda 3 vs Volvo S90: 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 $2,550 for the Volvo S90. That $700 yearly gap compounds to roughly $3,500 over five years and $5,600 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 and highway economy: the Mazda 3 leads in both cycles — 30 mpg city and 40 mpg highway against 28 and 35 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 Volvo S90 with 4 (SIDI; Mild Hybrid, SIDI; PHEV, 2.0). Across 97 recorded Mazda 3 configurations and 23 for the Volvo S90, 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 S90 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 Midsize 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 S90 emits 110 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.