Mazda 3 2009 vs Mazda 6 2008
| Body: | Hatchback | Estate car / wagon | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.3 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 260 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 226 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.1 seconds | 8.3 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 3 engine produces 90 HP more power than Mazda 6, whereas torque is 154 NM more than Mazda 6. Thanks to more power Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.6 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.1 l/100km | 8.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 3 could require 210 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 590 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 145 mm (5.7 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: | 320'000 km | 480'000 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: | 8 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda CX-7 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda Tribute | |
| 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 3 2009 2.3 engine: Although the engine has a chain, its capacity is quite limited. The engine also requires high quality fuel and tends to use more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.51 m | 4.71 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.47 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is smaller, but slightly higher. Mazda 3 is 21 cm shorter than the Mazda 6, 3 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`925 | 2`010 | |
| 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
| |