Mazda 6 2002 vs BMW 5 series 2003
| 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: | 2.3 Petrol | 2.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 166 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 207 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | 9 seconds | |
| Mazda 6 engine produces 4 HP less power than BMW 5 series, whereas torque is 3 NM less than BMW 5 series. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.1 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.2 l/100km | 9.7 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 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 5 series, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 6 could require 15 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 6 consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 5 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 1020 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW 5 series gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda 6) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW 5 series) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
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: | 6 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 3 sērija, BMW Z4, BMW Z3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW 5 series might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The BMW 5 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.67 m | 4.84 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.47 m | |
|
Mazda 6 is smaller. Mazda 6 is 17 cm shorter than the BMW 5 series, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 6 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 492 litres | 520 litres | |
|
BMW 5 series has more luggage space. Mazda 6 has 28 litres less trunk space than the BMW 5 series. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 6 is 0.2 metres less than that of the BMW 5 series. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`890 | 2`025 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Mazda 6 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 5 series has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mazda 6, so Mazda 6 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 4600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.3/10 | 8.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
BMW 5 sērija has
| |