Alfa Romeo 156 2002 vs Mazda 6 2002
| 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: | 165 HP | 141 HP | |
| Torque: | 206 NM | 181 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Alfa Romeo 156 is more dynamic to drive. Alfa Romeo 156 engine produces 24 HP more power than Mazda 6, whereas torque is 25 NM more than Mazda 6. Thanks to more power Alfa Romeo 156 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.9 | 8.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.7 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Alfa Romeo 156 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Alfa Romeo 156 could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Alfa Romeo 156 consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 760 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 250'000 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 6 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Alfa Romeo GT, Alfa Romeo Spider, Alfa Romeo GTV | 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 Alfa Romeo 156 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: | 4.43 m | 4.69 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Alfa Romeo 156 is smaller. Alfa Romeo 156 is 26 cm shorter than the Mazda 6, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Alfa Romeo 156 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 360 litres | 505 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1180 litres | 1712 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage space. Alfa Romeo 156 has 145 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 6. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 6 (by 532 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Alfa Romeo 156 is 0.3 metres more than that of the Mazda 6. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`815 | 1`905 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Mazda 6 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Alfa Romeo 156 has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Mazda 6, so Mazda 6 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Alfa Romeo 156 has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |