BMW 3 series 1992 vs Mazda MX-6 1991
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| 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: | 150 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 173 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is more dynamic to drive. BMW 3 series engine produces 34 HP more power than Mazda MX-6, whereas torque is 17 NM more than Mazda MX-6. Thanks to more power BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.0 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda MX-6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda MX-6, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW 3 series could require 150 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda MX-6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 690 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda MX-6) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW 3 series) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 520'000 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 MX-6 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW Z3 | Used also on Mazda 626 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW 3 series might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.43 m | 4.62 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.31 m | |
|
BMW 3 series is smaller, but higher. BMW 3 series is 19 cm shorter than the Mazda MX-6, 4 cm narrower, while the height of BMW 3 series is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 435 litres | 404 litres | |
|
BMW 3 series has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, BMW 3 series has 31 litres more trunk space than the Mazda MX-6. The Mazda MX-6 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 3 series is 0.8 metres less than that of the Mazda MX-6, which means BMW 3 series can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`760 | 1`510 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Mazda MX-6 has
| |