Ford Mondeo 2003 vs Mazda 6 2005
| Body: | Hatchback | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 145 HP | 147 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 184 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda 6 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Mondeo engine produces 2 HP less power than Mazda 6, but torque is 6 NM more than Mazda 6. Due to the lower power, Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.4 | 8.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.0 l/100km | 9.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 0.8 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 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 0.4 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 | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 590 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 430'000 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 | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Mazda 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.73 m | 4.69 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.44 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Mondeo is 4 cm longer than the Mazda 6, 3 cm wider, while the height of Ford Mondeo is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 500 litres | 501 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1370 litres | no data | |
| Ford Mondeo has 1 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 6. | |||
| 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 (kg): | 1`875 | 1`885 | |
| 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 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.5/10 | 7.7/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |