BMW 3 series 2007 vs Mazda 6 2008
| Body: | Cabrio | Estate car / wagon | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 218 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 226 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.6 seconds | 8.3 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is more dynamic to drive. BMW 3 series engine produces 48 HP more power than Mazda 6, whereas torque is 44 NM more than Mazda 6. Thanks to more power BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 8.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6, which means that by driving the BMW 3 series over 15,000 km in a year you can save 90 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, BMW 3 series consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 730 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 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. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 138 mm (5.4 inches) | 165 mm (6.5 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda 6 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Mazda 6 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.58 m | 4.71 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.38 m | 1.44 m | |
|
BMW 3 series is smaller. BMW 3 series is 13 cm shorter than the Mazda 6, 2 cm narrower, while the height of BMW 3 series is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 210 litres | 505 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
350 litres | 1751 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage space. BMW 3 series has 295 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 6. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 6 (by 1401 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 3 series is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mazda 6. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`085 | 2`010 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Mazda 6 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mazda 6, so Mazda 6 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 9400 | 3400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |