Mazda 6 2002 vs Mazda 3 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.6 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: | 120 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 165 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 11 seconds | |
| Mazda 6 engine produces 15 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Mazda 3. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.3 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.2 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 6 consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 6 could require 165 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 6 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 780 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
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 | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda Xedos 6, Mazda MX-3 | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda 3 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
| Mazda 6 2002 1.8 engine: The engine often has an unstable idle speed. The thermostat, cooling pump, and alternator are weak points. Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine: This engine is widely regarded as reliable, though it can develop certain issues over time. One of the most common problems is increased oil consumption, often starting after 120,000 km. This is frequently ... More about Mazda 3 2003 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.67 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Mazda 6 is larger, but slightly lower. Mazda 6 is 25 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 2 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 6 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 492 litres | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 635 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 6 has 192 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 6 is 0.5 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): | 1`830 | 1`695 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Mazda 3 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 6, so Mazda 3 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.3/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |