Mazda 6 2010 vs Mazda 6 2012
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.8 - 3.7 | 2.0 - 2.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 - 272 HP | 150 - 192 HP | |
| Torque: | 165 - 400 NM | 210 - 420 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.1 - 11.4 seconds | 7.8 - 10.6 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 - 10.3 | 3.9 - 6.3 | |
|
Mazda 6 2010 petrol engines consumes on average 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than Mazda 6 2012. On average, Mazda 6 2010 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6 2012. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.78 m | 4.87 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Mazda 6 2010 is smaller. Mazda 6 2010 is 9 cm shorter than the Mazda 6 2012, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 6 2010 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 519 litres | 489 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 2010 has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Mazda 6 2010 has 30 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 6 2012. The Mazda 6 2012 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 6 2010 is 1.6 metres more than that of the Mazda 6 2012, which means Mazda 6 2010 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`974 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 6600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |