Ford Mondeo 2003 vs Mazda 6 2002
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 145 HP | 141 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 181 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 11.8 seconds | |
|
Ford Mondeo is more dynamic to drive. Ford Mondeo engine produces 4 HP more power than Mazda 6, whereas torque is 9 NM more than Mazda 6. Thanks to more power Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.4 | 8.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.0 l/100km | 8.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 0.6 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 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 590 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 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 Ford Mondeo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 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 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: | 4.73 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.44 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Mondeo is 6 cm longer than the Mazda 6, 3 cm wider, while the height of Ford Mondeo is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 500 litres | 492 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1370 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo is 0.3 metres more than that of the Mazda 6. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`875 kg | 1`880 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`388 kg | 1`325 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 487 kg | 555 kg | |
| Ford Mondeo load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 14 procentiem less than Mazda 6. Therefore, Mazda 6 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Ford Mondeo has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 6, so Ford Mondeo quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.5/10 | 6.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |