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: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 166 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 207 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
| Ford Mondeo engine produces 4 HP more power than Mazda 6, whereas torque is 13 NM more than Mazda 6. Despite the higher power, Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.7 | 8.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.8 l/100km | 10.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 1.9 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 285 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 550 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 740 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 540 km with real consumption | 620 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 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 Ford Mondeo 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. | |||
| Ford Mondeo 2003 2.5 engine: The LCBD engine features a multi-point fuel injection system, where each cylinder is equipped with its own injector for precise fuel delivery. This system is highly durable and reliable, with a low likelihood of ... More about Ford Mondeo 2003 2.5 engine Mazda 6 2005 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: | 4.73 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`950 | 1`945 | |
| 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
| |