Mazda 6 2018 vs Volvo V60 2018
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| 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: | 194 HP | 249 HP | |
| Torque: | 258 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.9 seconds | 6.7 seconds | |
|
Volvo V60 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 6 engine produces 55 HP less power than Volvo V60, whereas torque is 92 NM less than Volvo V60. Due to the lower power, Mazda 6 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.2 l/100km | 8.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mazda 6 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V60, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 6 could require 45 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 6 consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 920 km in combined cycle | |
| 750 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Ground clearance: | 165 mm (6.5 inches) | 142 mm (5.6 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda 6 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. Note, however, that this Mazda 6 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 390'000 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 Mazda 6 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda CX-5 | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Volvo S60, Volvo XC90, Volvo XC60, Volvo S90 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo V60 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.76 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.43 m | |
| Mazda 6 is 4 cm longer than the Volvo V60, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 6 is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 522 litres | 529 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1664 litres | 1441 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda 6 has 7 litres less trunk space than the Volvo V60. This could mean that the Mazda 6 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 6 (by 223 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 6 is 0.3 metres less than that of the Volvo V60. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`113 | 2`220 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda 6 is better rated in child safety tests. | |||
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Volvo V60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 6 has serious deffects in 50 percent more cases than Volvo V60, so Volvo V60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 22 000 | 29 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Volvo V60 has
| |