Mazda 6 2007 vs Chevrolet Epica 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 147 HP | 156 HP | |
| Torque: | 184 NM | 237 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.8 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Chevrolet Epica is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 6 engine produces 9 HP less power than Chevrolet Epica, whereas torque is 53 NM less than Chevrolet Epica. Due to the lower power, Mazda 6 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 9.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.7 l/100km | 9.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 6 consumes 1.6 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 240 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 6 consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Epica. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 1120 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 360'000 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 Mazda 6 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | 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 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): | 1`935 | 1`985 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 2800 | 2400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Chevrolet Epica has
| |