Mazda 6 2002 vs Nissan Qashqai 2010
| Body: | Sedan | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 141 HP | |
| Torque: | 165 NM | 196 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
| Mazda 6 engine produces 21 HP less power than Nissan Qashqai, whereas torque is 31 NM less than Nissan Qashqai. Due to the lower power, Mazda 6 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.3 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.2 l/100km | 8.9 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 Nissan Qashqai, 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 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Nissan Qashqai. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 790 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 970 km on highway | ||
| 780 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 130 mm (5.1 inches) | 201 mm (7.9 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Nissan Qashqai can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan X-Trail, Nissan Serena | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan Qashqai might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Mazda 6 2002 1.8 engine: The engine often has an unstable idle speed. The thermostat, cooling pump, and alternator are weak points. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.67 m | 4.33 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.62 m | |
| Mazda 6 is 34 cm longer than the Nissan Qashqai, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda 6 is 18 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 500 litres | 410 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1513 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 6 has 90 litres more trunk space than the Nissan Qashqai. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 6 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Nissan Qashqai. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`815 | 1`960 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Nissan Qashqai has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 6 has serious deffects in 385 percent more cases than Nissan Qashqai, so Nissan Qashqai quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 7000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.3/10 | 7.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Nissan Qashqai has
| |