Mazda 3 2016 vs Mazda 6 2015
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 9.5 seconds | |
|
Mazda 6 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 45 HP less power than Mazda 6, but torque is 60 NM more than Mazda 6. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 3.8 | 6.0 | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 consumes 2.2 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 330 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1340 km in combined cycle | 1030 km in combined cycle | |
| 1450 km on highway | 1290 km on highway | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 155 mm (6.1 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 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: | 11 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 2 | 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. Mazda 6 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Mazda 6 2015 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda 6 2015 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.59 m | 4.87 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is smaller. Mazda 3 is 29 cm shorter than the Mazda 6, 5 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 419 litres | 438 litres | |
| Mazda 3 has 19 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.6 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): | 1`870 | 1`935 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 6 has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 600 | 17 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |