Mazda 6 2002 vs Ford Mondeo 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 162 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 205 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.3 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
|
Ford Mondeo is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 6 engine produces 8 HP less power than Ford Mondeo, whereas torque is 15 NM less than Ford Mondeo. Due to the lower power, Mazda 6 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.5 | 10.7 | |
| Mazda 6 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo, which means that by driving the Mazda 6 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 59 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 600 km in combined cycle | 550 km in combined cycle | |
| 810 km on highway | 740 km on highway | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda Tribute | 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 Ford Mondeo 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 cooling system pump and thermostat, engine mounts (which can cause vibration), lambda sensor, and intake manifold adjuster are the most common problems with this engine. Ford Mondeo 2003 2.5 engine: The LCBD engine features a multi-point fuel injection system, where each cylinder is equipped with its own injector for precise fuel delivery. This system is highly durable and reliable, with a low likelihood of ... More about Ford Mondeo 2003 2.5 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.69 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Mazda 6 is smaller, but slightly higher. Mazda 6 is 11 cm shorter than the Ford Mondeo, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 6 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 490 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1712 litres | 1700 litres | |
| Mazda 6 has 50 litres less trunk space than the Ford Mondeo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 6 (by 12 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 6 is 0.3 metres less than that of the Ford Mondeo. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`025 | 2`105 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Ford Mondeo has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 6, so Ford Mondeo quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.3/10 | 7.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Ford Mondeo has
| |