Mazda 6 2010 vs Mazda 3 2011
| 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: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 163 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 360 NM | 191 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
Mazda 6 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 6 engine produces 13 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 169 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Mazda 6 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 6 consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that by driving the Mazda 6 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 195 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 6 consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1180 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 1420 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| 960 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 165 mm (6.5 inches) | 155 mm (6.1 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: | 380'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda CX-7 | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 3 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Mazda 3 2011 2.0 engine: The engine tends to idle unevenly. Engine problems may also include the thermostat and cooling pump. This engine tends to consume more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.76 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.47 m | |
|
Mazda 6 is larger, but slightly lower. Mazda 6 is 18 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 4 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 6 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 510 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1702 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 6 has 80 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 6 is 0.4 metres more than that of the Mazda 3, which means Mazda 6 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`110 | 1`820 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 6 has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4000 | 5200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |