Kia Optima 2013 vs Mazda 6 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.7 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 325 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.6 seconds | 9.1 seconds | |
|
Mazda 6 is a more dynamic driving. Kia Optima engine produces 14 HP less power than Mazda 6, whereas torque is 55 NM less than Mazda 6. Due to the lower power, Kia Optima reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 3.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Kia Optima consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Kia Optima could require 315 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Kia Optima consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1160 km in combined cycle | 1580 km in combined cycle | |
| 1420 km on highway | 1820 km on highway | ||
| 1060 km with real consumption | 1030 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Kia Sportage, Hyundai Tucson, Hyundai i40, Hyundai ix35 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda CX-7 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Kia Optima might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Kia Optima 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: | 4.85 m | 4.87 m | |
| Width: | 1.83 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.45 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Kia Optima is 3 cm shorter than the Mazda 6, 1 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 505 litres | 489 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Kia Optima has 16 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 6. The Mazda 6 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Kia Optima is 1 metres more than that of the Mazda 6, which means Kia Optima can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`050 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Kia Optima is better rated in child safety tests. The Mazda 6 scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 9200 | 7200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Kia Optima has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |