BMW 3 series 2010 vs Mazda 6 2010
| Body: | Coupe | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 3.0 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 306 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 226 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 5.3 seconds | 8.1 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is more dynamic to drive. BMW 3 series engine produces 136 HP more power than Mazda 6, whereas torque is 174 NM more than Mazda 6. Thanks to more power BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 2.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.8 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.5 l/100km | 8.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW 3 series could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 600 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
|
BMW 3 sērija has 4x4: BMW xDrive is a proactive all-wheel drive system without a center differential that engages before the vehicle becomes destabilized, unnoticed by the driver. Torque is distributed between the axles by an electronically controlled multi-plate clutch in the transfer case. The clutch is partially locked most of the time, distributing power to both axles in a 40/60 front/rear ratio, but the system is capable of sending 100% of the torque to either axle. At higher speeds or when parking, multi-plate clutch is disengaged and all power is transferred to the rear wheels. DSC system (Dynamic Stability Control) also brakes the wheels separately to regain traction and assist in cornering. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 480'000 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: | 9 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW X5, BMW 1 sērija, BMW X3, BMW X6 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda Tribute | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The BMW 3 series 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: | 4.61 m | 4.76 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.38 m | 1.44 m | |
|
BMW 3 series is smaller. BMW 3 series is 14 cm shorter than the Mazda 6, 1 cm narrower, while the height of BMW 3 series is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 440 litres | 519 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage space. BMW 3 series has 79 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`085 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| BMW 3 series has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 6 has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than BMW 3 series, so BMW 3 series quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 10 000 | 4400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |