Mazda 6 2010 vs Volkswagen Passat 2010
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| 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: | 163 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 360 NM | 350 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 8.8 seconds | |
|
Volkswagen Passat is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 6 engine produces 7 HP less power than Volkswagen Passat, but torque is 10 NM more than Volkswagen Passat. Due to the lower power, Mazda 6 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.4 | 5.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 7.0 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 Volkswagen Passat, 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 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Passat. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1180 km in combined cycle | 1320 km in combined cycle | |
| 1420 km on highway | 1520 km on highway | ||
| 960 km with real consumption | 1000 km with real consumption | ||
| Volkswagen Passat gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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 | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda CX-7 | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Sharan, Audi A3, Skoda Superb | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Passat might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volkswagen Passat 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: | 4.79 m | 4.77 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.49 m | 1.52 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda 6 is 1 cm longer than the Volkswagen Passat, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 6 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 519 litres | 603 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1751 litres | no data | |
|
Volkswagen Passat has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mazda 6 has 84 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Passat. This could mean that the Mazda 6 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 6 is 0.4 metres more than that of the Volkswagen Passat, which means Mazda 6 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`145 | 2`170 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | low | |
| Mazda 6 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volkswagen Passat has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Mazda 6, so Mazda 6 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 5400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Volkswagen Passat has
| |