Mazda 3 2019 vs Mazda 6 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 165 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.3 seconds | 11.7 seconds | |
| Mazda 3 and Mazda 6 have the same engine power, but Mazda 3 torque is 15 NM less than Mazda 6. Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.1 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6, which means that by driving the Mazda 3 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 980 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 1280 km on highway | ||
| 790 km with real consumption | 800 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 390'000 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: | 12 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 2 | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mazda 3 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 2010 1.8 engine: The engine often has an unstable idle speed. The thermostat, cooling pump, and alternator are weak points. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.46 m | 4.76 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.44 m | |
| Mazda 3 is 30 cm shorter than the Mazda 6, width is practically the same also the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 295 litres | 510 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1019 litres | 1702 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 215 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 6. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 6 (by 683 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 1.2 metres less than that of the Mazda 6, which means Mazda 3 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`925 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 6 has serious deffects in 175 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 21 400 | 3400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |