Mazda 6 2002 vs Volvo V50 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Petrol | 2.4 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: | 166 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 207 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Mazda 6 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 6 engine produces 26 HP more power than Volvo V50, but torque is 13 NM less than Volvo V50. Thanks to more power Mazda 6 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.1 | 8.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.2 l/100km | 9.1 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo V50 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 6 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V50, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 6 could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 6 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V50. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 390'000 km | 560'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volvo V50 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo S40, Volvo S70 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo V50 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo V50 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 2.3 engine: The most common problems with this engine are with the cooling system pump and thermostat, as well as with the engine cushions (which can cause vibrations), the lambda sensor and the intake manifold adjuster. Volvo V50 2004 2.4 engine: The strengths of this engine lie in its durable components, long lifespan, reliability in everyday use, and substantial power reserves. However, there are notable weaknesses. Early models were equipped ... More about Volvo V50 2004 2.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.69 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Mazda 6 is larger. Mazda 6 is 18 cm longer than the Volvo V50, 1 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 505 litres | 417 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1712 litres | 1307 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 6 has 88 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V50. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 6 (by 405 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 6 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Volvo V50. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`935 | 1`850 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.3/10 | 6.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Volvo V50 has
| |