Mazda 6 2002 vs BMW 3 series 2001
| 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: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 141 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 181 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 6 engine produces 2 HP less power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 19 NM less than BMW 3 series. Due to the lower power, Mazda 6 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.8 | 8.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.8 l/100km | 9.2 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 6 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 6 could require 105 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 6 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| 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) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 380'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 6 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The BMW 3 series 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 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: | 4.67 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Mazda 6 is larger. Mazda 6 is 20 cm longer than the BMW 3 series, 4 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 6 is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 492 litres | 440 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 6 has 52 litres more trunk space than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 6 is 0.8 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series, which means Mazda 6 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`880 kg | 1`850 kg | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | low | |
| Mazda 6 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mazda 6, so Mazda 6 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.3/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |