Mazda 6 2007 vs Chevrolet Epica 2007
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 330 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 10.1 seconds | |
|
Chevrolet Epica is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 6 engine produces 10 HP less power than Chevrolet Epica, but torque is 10 NM more than Chevrolet Epica. Due to the lower power, Mazda 6 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 6 consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Epica, which means that by driving the Mazda 6 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 300 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 6 consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Epica. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1140 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km with real consumption | 800 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: | 390'000 km | 530'000 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 Chevrolet Epica engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda 5 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Chevrolet Captiva, Opel Antara, Chevrolet Cruze | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Chevrolet Epica might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Chevrolet Epica 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: | 4.76 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.45 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda 6 is 4 cm shorter than the Chevrolet Epica, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 6 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 519 litres | 480 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Mazda 6 has 39 litres more trunk space than the Chevrolet Epica. The Chevrolet Epica may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 6 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Chevrolet Epica, which means Mazda 6 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`035 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 2800 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Chevrolet Epica has
| |