Chevrolet Epica 2006 vs Mazda 6 2007
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 141 HP | 147 HP | |
| Torque: | 195 NM | 184 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
| Chevrolet Epica engine produces 6 HP less power than Mazda 6, but torque is 11 NM more than Mazda 6. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 7.0 | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Chevrolet Epica consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chevrolet Epica could require 180 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 790 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 1030 km on highway | 1180 km on highway | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 420'000 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: | 8 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 6 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Chevrolet Epica 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. | |||
| Mazda 6 2007 2.0 engine: The engine tends to idle unevenly. Engine problems may also include the thermostat and cooling pump. This engine tends to consume more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.76 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.44 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Chevrolet Epica is 4 cm longer than the Mazda 6, 1 cm wider, while the height of Chevrolet Epica is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 480 litres | 519 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Chevrolet Epica has 39 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 6. This could mean that the Chevrolet Epica uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chevrolet Epica is 0.6 metres less than that of the Mazda 6, which means Chevrolet Epica can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`985 | 1`905 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 2400 | 2400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Epica has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |