Volkswagen Passat 2010 vs Mazda 6 2013
| 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: | 8.8 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Passat is more dynamic to drive. Volkswagen Passat engine produces 20 HP more power than Mazda 6, but torque is 30 NM less than Mazda 6. Thanks to more power Volkswagen Passat reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 | 4.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Passat consumes 0.9 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 could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Passat consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1320 km in combined cycle | 1400 km in combined cycle | |
| 1520 km on highway | 1630 km on highway | ||
| 1000 km with real consumption | 1030 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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 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 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volkswagen Passat 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: | 4.77 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.48 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Volkswagen Passat is 3 cm shorter than the Mazda 6, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Passat is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 603 litres | 502 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Passat has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Volkswagen Passat has 101 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: | 11.4 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Passat is 0.4 metres less than that of the Mazda 6, which means Volkswagen Passat can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`170 | 2`090 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda 6 scores higher in safety tests. The Mazda 6 scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Mazda 6 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Volkswagen Passat, so Mazda 6 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 6400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Passat has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |