Mazda 6 2010 vs Mazda 6 2012
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 165 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.4 seconds | 9.1 seconds | |
|
Mazda 6 2012 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 6 2010 engine produces 45 HP less power than Mazda 6 2012, whereas torque is 45 NM less than Mazda 6 2012. Due to the lower power, Mazda 6 2010 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 2012 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 6 2010 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6 2012, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 6 2010 could require 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 6 2010 consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6 2012. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 1050 km in combined cycle | |
| 1300 km on highway | 1260 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 390'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5, Mazda CX-3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 6 2012 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda 6 2012 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: | 4.76 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 12 cm shorter than the Mazda 6 2012, 5 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`885 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 6600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |