Volkswagen Passat 2002 vs Mazda 6 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 HP | 141 HP | |
| Torque: | 195 NM | 181 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda 6 is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Passat engine produces 11 HP less power than Mazda 6, but torque is 14 NM more than Mazda 6. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Passat reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 8.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.1 l/100km | 8.4 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 0.5 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 75 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Volkswagen Passat consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 1030 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 760 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Audi A6, Audi A4 | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 6 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. | |||
| Mazda 6 2002 2.0 engine: The engine tends to idle unevenly. Engine problems may also include the thermostat and cooling pump. This engine tends to consume more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.70 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.44 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Volkswagen Passat is 3 cm longer than the Mazda 6, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Passat is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 475 litres | 500 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Volkswagen Passat has 25 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 6. This could mean that the Volkswagen Passat uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Passat is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mazda 6. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`930 | 1`840 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | 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 (€): | 1400 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 6.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Passat has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |