Mazda MX-5 2006 vs Audi TT 1998
| Body: | Cabrio | Coupe | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 126 HP | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 167 NM | 235 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.6 seconds | 7.8 seconds | |
|
Audi TT is a more dynamic driving. Mazda MX-5 engine produces 54 HP less power than Audi TT, whereas torque is 68 NM less than Audi TT. Due to the lower power, Mazda MX-5 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 8.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.3 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda MX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda MX-5 consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT, which means that by driving the Mazda MX-5 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda MX-5 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 600 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Audi TT) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Mazda MX-5) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Skoda Octavia, Audi A3, Seat Leon, Seat Toledo | |
| 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 Audi TT 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.00 m | 4.04 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.26 m | 1.35 m | |
|
Mazda MX-5 is smaller. Mazda MX-5 is 4 cm shorter than the Audi TT, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda MX-5 is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 150 litres | 270 litres | |
|
Audi TT has more luggage space. Mazda MX-5 has 120 litres less trunk space than the Audi TT. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`355 | 1`665 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | high | high | |
| Mazda MX-5 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Audi TT has serious deffects in 80 percent more cases than Mazda MX-5, so Mazda MX-5 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5400 | 4400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda MX-5 has
|
Audi TT has
| |