Honda Accord 2003 vs Mazda 6 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 155 HP | 121 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.6 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Honda Accord is more dynamic to drive. Honda Accord engine produces 34 HP more power than Mazda 6, but torque is 130 NM less than Mazda 6. Thanks to more power Honda Accord reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.5 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda Accord consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Honda Accord could require 255 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda Accord consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 1060 km in combined cycle | |
| 1040 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 960 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 390'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Honda Civic, Honda CR-V, Honda FR-V, Honda Stream | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda 5 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Honda Accord might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Honda Accord 2003 2.0 engine: In 2001, Honda introduced the K-series engine lineup, featuring an aluminum block with an open-deck design and cast-iron cylinder liners. It utilizes a port fuel injection system, a 16-valve aluminum cylinder head without hydraulic lifters, individual ignition coils, a VTC cam ... More about Honda Accord 2003 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.69 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.44 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Honda Accord is 3 cm shorter than the Mazda 6, 2 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 459 litres | 501 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage space. Honda Accord has 42 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda Accord is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mazda 6. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`920 | 1`980 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Honda Accord has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 6, so Honda Accord quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 7.7/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda Accord has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |