Mazda MX-6 1991 vs BMW 3 series 1992
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 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: | 116 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 173 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is a more dynamic driving. Mazda MX-6 engine produces 34 HP less power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 17 NM less than BMW 3 series. Due to the lower power, Mazda MX-6 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.0 l/100km | 9.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda MX-6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda MX-6 consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that by driving the Mazda MX-6 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 150 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda MX-6 consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 660 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda MX-6) 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 (BMW 3 series) 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: | 520'000 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 MX-6 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 626 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW Z3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW 3 series might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.62 m | 4.43 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.31 m | 1.37 m | |
|
Mazda MX-6 is larger, but lower. Mazda MX-6 is 19 cm longer than the BMW 3 series, 4 cm wider, while the height of Mazda MX-6 is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 404 litres | 435 litres | |
|
BMW 3 series has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mazda MX-6 has 31 litres less trunk space than the BMW 3 series. This could mean that the Mazda MX-6 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda MX-6 is 0.8 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series, which means Mazda MX-6 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`510 | 1`760 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 3400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda MX-6 has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |