Mazda 3 2003 vs Mazda 6 2005
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 165 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.4 seconds | 10.7 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 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 7.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.2 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 3 consumes 0.1 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 15 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 3 consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km on highway | 1080 km on highway | ||
| 590 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 390'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3 | Used only for this car | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mazda 3 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 3 2003 1.6 engine: This engine is widely regarded as reliable, though it can develop certain issues over time. One of the most common problems is increased oil consumption, often starting after 120,000 km. This is frequently ... More about Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine Mazda 6 2005 1.8 engine: The engine often has an unstable idle speed. The thermostat, cooling pump, and alternator are weak points. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.69 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Mazda 3 is smaller, but slightly higher. Mazda 3 is 20 cm shorter than the Mazda 6, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 3 is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | 501 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
675 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage space. Mazda 3 has 88 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 3 is 0.5 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`700 | 1`825 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Mazda 6 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 3, so Mazda 6 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 7.7/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 3 has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |