Mazda 6 2018 vs Jaguar XF 2015
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 184 HP | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 445 NM | 430 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | 8.1 seconds | |
| Mazda 6 engine produces 4 HP more power than Jaguar XF, whereas torque is 15 NM more than Jaguar XF. Despite the higher power, Mazda 6 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 4.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Jaguar XF is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 6 consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jaguar XF, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 6 could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 6 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jaguar XF. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda 6) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Jaguar XF) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda CX-5 | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Land Rover Discovery Sport, Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, Jaguar XE | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Jaguar XF might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Jaguar XF 2015 2.0 engine: This engine is known for its relatively limited lifespan. In early production models, balance shaft bearings wore out quickly and started making noise. The chain-driven timing system, located on the flywheel ... More about Jaguar XF 2015 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.87 m | 4.95 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.99 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Mazda 6 is smaller. Mazda 6 is 9 cm shorter than the Jaguar XF, 15 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 489 litres | 540 litres | |
|
Jaguar XF has more luggage space. Mazda 6 has 51 litres less trunk space than the Jaguar XF. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 6 is 0.4 metres more than that of the Jaguar XF, which means Mazda 6 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`200 | 2`250 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda 6 is better rated in child safety tests. The Jaguar XF scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | low | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 24 000 | 20 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Jaguar XF has
| |