Alfa Romeo 156 2002 vs Mazda 6 2002
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.3 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: | 192 HP | 162 HP | |
| Torque: | 218 NM | 205 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.5 seconds | 12.3 seconds | |
|
Alfa Romeo 156 is more dynamic to drive. Alfa Romeo 156 engine produces 30 HP more power than Mazda 6, whereas torque is 13 NM more than Mazda 6. Thanks to more power Alfa Romeo 156 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.9 | 10.5 | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Alfa Romeo 156 consumes 1.4 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 210 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 520 km in combined cycle | 600 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km on highway | 810 km on highway | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 390'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda Tribute | |
| 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 2.3 engine: The cooling system pump and thermostat, engine mounts (which can cause vibration), lambda sensor, and intake manifold adjuster are the most common problems with this engine. | |||
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 | 490 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1180 litres | 1712 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage space. Alfa Romeo 156 has 130 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: | 11.6 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Alfa Romeo 156 is 0.8 metres more than that of the Mazda 6, which means Alfa Romeo 156 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`895 | 2`025 | |
| 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
| |