Volkswagen Passat CC 2012 vs Mazda 6 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| 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: | 170 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.6 seconds | 9.1 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Passat CC is more dynamic to drive. Volkswagen Passat CC engine produces 20 HP more power than Mazda 6, but torque is 30 NM less than Mazda 6. Thanks to more power Volkswagen Passat CC reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 3.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Passat CC consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Passat CC could require 240 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Passat CC consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1270 km in combined cycle | 1580 km in combined cycle | |
| 1420 km on highway | 1820 km on highway | ||
| 980 km with real consumption | 1030 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 380'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Sharan, Audi A3, Skoda Superb | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda CX-7 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Passat CC might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volkswagen Passat CC 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: | no data | 4.87 m | |
| Width: | no data | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | no data | 1.45 m | |
| Trunk capacity: | 532 litres | 489 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Passat CC has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Volkswagen Passat CC has 43 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 6. The Mazda 6 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 10.2 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`970 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Mazda 6 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Passat CC has serious deffects in 150 percent more cases than Mazda 6, so Mazda 6 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 18 000 | 6600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Passat CC has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |