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: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.8 seconds | 9.1 seconds | |
|
Mazda 6 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 3 engine produces 65 HP less power than Mazda 6, whereas torque is 60 NM less than Mazda 6. Due to the lower power, Mazda 3 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.4 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.8 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 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 51 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1000 km in combined cycle | 1050 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 1260 km on highway | ||
| 790 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
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: | 12 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 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, 4 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 364 litres | 489 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1263 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 125 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): | 1`800 | 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
| |