Jaguar XF 2015 vs Mazda 6 2018
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 180 HP | 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 430 NM | 213 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.1 seconds | 10.1 seconds | |
|
Jaguar XF is more dynamic to drive. Jaguar XF engine produces 15 HP more power than Mazda 6, whereas torque is 217 NM more than Mazda 6. Thanks to more power Jaguar XF reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.3 | 6.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Jaguar XF is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Jaguar XF consumes 1.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6, which means that by driving the Jaguar XF over 15,000 km in a year you can save 285 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Jaguar XF consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
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 (Jaguar XF) 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: | 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: | 9 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, Jaguar XE, Land Rover Discovery Sport | 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.95 m | 4.87 m | |
| Width: | 1.99 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Jaguar XF is larger. Jaguar XF is 9 cm longer than the Mazda 6, 15 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 489 litres | |
|
Jaguar XF has more luggage capacity. Jaguar XF has 51 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Jaguar XF is 0.4 metres less than that of the Mazda 6, which means Jaguar XF can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`250 | 2`046 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda 6 is better rated in child safety tests. The Jaguar XF scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 21 400 | 24 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Jaguar XF has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |