Mazda 6 2010 vs Honda Accord 2007
| 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: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 156 HP | |
| Torque: | 165 NM | 192 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.7 seconds | 9.4 seconds | |
|
Honda Accord is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 6 engine produces 36 HP less power than Honda Accord, whereas torque is 27 NM less than Honda Accord. Due to the lower power, Mazda 6 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.5 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 6 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord, which means that by driving the Mazda 6 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 6 consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 900 km in combined cycle | |
| 1280 km on highway | 1100 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 760 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 390'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 19 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Honda CR-V | |
| 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. | |||
| Mazda 6 2010 1.8 engine: The engine often has an unstable idle speed. The thermostat, cooling pump, and alternator are weak points. Honda Accord 2007 2.0 engine: This engine is sensitive to both fuel and oil quality. Using low-grade gasoline can quickly damage the catalytic converter and lead to premature failure of the oxygen sensors. Many Honda owners are annoyed ... More about Honda Accord 2007 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.76 m | 4.73 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.44 m | |
| Mazda 6 is 3 cm longer than the Honda Accord, 5 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 510 litres | 467 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1702 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 6 has 43 litres more trunk space than the Honda Accord. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 11.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 6 is 0.3 metres more than that of the Honda Accord. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`925 | 1`960 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Mazda 6 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Honda Accord has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mazda 6, so Mazda 6 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4000 | 4000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Honda Accord has
| |