Mazda 3 2009 vs Mazda 6 2008
| Body: | Hatchback | Estate car / wagon | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 165 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.2 seconds | 11.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda 6 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 15 HP less power than Mazda 6, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Mazda 6. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 7.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.7 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 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 870 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 1050 km on highway | 1180 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| 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: | 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: | 16 years | 10 years | |
| 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. | |||
| Mazda 6 2008 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 | 4.71 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is smaller, but slightly higher. Mazda 3 is 25 cm shorter than the Mazda 6, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 340 litres | 505 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1360 litres | 1751 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 165 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 6. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 6 (by 391 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.4 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`770 | 1`965 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda 3 scores higher in safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | high | above 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 (€): | 4200 | 2800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |