Ford Mondeo 2010 vs Mazda 6 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 240 HP | 155 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 193 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.5 seconds | 11.1 seconds | |
|
Ford Mondeo is more dynamic to drive. Ford Mondeo engine produces 85 HP more power than Mazda 6, whereas torque is 147 NM more than Mazda 6. Thanks to more power Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 3.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.8 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Mondeo could require 15 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 900 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 1160 km on highway | 1100 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Mondeo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 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: | 4 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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. | |||
| Mazda 6 2010 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: | 4.78 m | 4.76 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Ford Mondeo is larger. Ford Mondeo is 2 cm longer than the Mazda 6, 9 cm wider, while the height of Ford Mondeo is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 486 litres | 510 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1390 litres | 1702 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Ford Mondeo has 24 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 6. This could mean that the Ford Mondeo uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 6 (by 312 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo is 0.4 metres less than that of the Mazda 6, which means Ford Mondeo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`200 | 1`980 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Mazda 6 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Mondeo has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Mazda 6, so Mazda 6 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 5000 | 4000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |