Mazda 6 2013 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 10.2 seconds | |
| Mazda 6 and Mazda CX-5 have the same engine power, the torque is the same for both cars. Mazda 6 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.9 | 5.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 6 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that by driving the Mazda 6 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 6 consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1260 km in combined cycle | 1050 km in combined cycle | |
| 1470 km on highway | 1190 km on highway | ||
| 950 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 380'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 5 years | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.71 m | |
| Mazda 6 is 26 cm longer than the Mazda CX-5, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda 6 is 23 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 502 litres | 505 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 1620 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 6 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mazda CX-5, which means Mazda 6 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`110 kg | 2`050 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`430 kg | 1`480 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 680 kg | 570 kg | |
| Mazda 6 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 16 procentiem more than Mazda CX-5. Therefore, Mazda 6 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | |||
| Mazda CX-5 is better rated in child safety tests. The Mazda CX-5 scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Mazda CX-5 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 6, so Mazda CX-5 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 5800 | 7400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |