Ford Mondeo 2003 vs Mazda 6 2005
| Body: | Hatchback | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 HP | 121 HP | |
| Torque: | 330 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Ford Mondeo is more dynamic to drive. Ford Mondeo engine produces 9 HP more power than Mazda 6, whereas torque is 10 NM more than Mazda 6. Thanks to more power Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6, which means that by driving the Ford Mondeo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 960 km in combined cycle | 1060 km in combined cycle | |
| 1210 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 960 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 390'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Mazda 6 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda 5 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 6 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Ford Mondeo engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.73 m | 4.69 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.44 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Mondeo is 4 cm longer than the Mazda 6, 3 cm wider, while the height of Ford Mondeo is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 500 litres | 501 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1370 litres | no data | |
| Ford Mondeo has 1 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo is 0.3 metres more than that of the Mazda 6. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`000 | 1`980 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Ford Mondeo has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 6, so Ford Mondeo quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.5/10 | 7.7/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |