Mazda 3 2013 vs Mazda 6 2012
| Body: | Hatchback | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 104 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 144 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.6 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Mazda 6 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 46 HP less power than Mazda 6, whereas torque is 66 NM less than Mazda 6. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.5 | 6.1 | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 3 consumes 0.4 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 60 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 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: | 16 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda 6 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 2012 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 2012 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.47 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 41 cm shorter than the Mazda 6, 5 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 483 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1263 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 119 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.4 metres more than that of the Mazda 6, which means Mazda 3 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda 3 is better rated in child safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Mazda 6 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 3 has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mazda 6, so Mazda 6 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 7000 | 7000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |