Volkswagen Passat 2010 vs Mazda 6 2010
| 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 | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 350 NM | 360 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.8 seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Passat is more dynamic to drive. Volkswagen Passat engine produces 7 HP more power than Mazda 6, but torque is 10 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 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Volkswagen Passat consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Passat over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Volkswagen Passat consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1320 km in combined cycle | 1180 km in combined cycle | |
| 1520 km on highway | 1420 km on highway | ||
| 1000 km with real consumption | 960 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Passat 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 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 | 4.79 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.49 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Volkswagen Passat is 1 cm shorter than the Mazda 6, 3 cm wider, while the height of Volkswagen Passat is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 603 litres | 519 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1751 litres | |
|
Volkswagen Passat has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Volkswagen Passat has 84 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`145 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Mazda 6 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Passat has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Mazda 6, so Mazda 6 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5400 | 4200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Passat has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |