Mazda 6 2002 vs Alfa Romeo 159 2005
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 141 HP | 185 HP | |
| Torque: | 181 NM | 230 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 8.8 seconds | |
|
Alfa Romeo 159 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 6 engine produces 44 HP less power than Alfa Romeo 159, whereas torque is 49 NM less than Alfa Romeo 159. Due to the lower power, Mazda 6 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 10.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 6 consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Alfa Romeo 159, which means that by driving the Mazda 6 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 6 consumes 1.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Alfa Romeo 159. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 300'000 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 | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Alfa Romeo Brera, Alfa Romeo Spider | |
| 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 Alfa Romeo 159 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 2.0 engine: The engine tends to idle unevenly. Engine problems may also include the thermostat and cooling pump. This engine tends to consume more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.67 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.42 m | |
| Mazda 6 is 1 cm longer than the Alfa Romeo 159, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 6 is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 500 litres | 405 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 6 has 95 litres more trunk space than the Alfa Romeo 159. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 6 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Alfa Romeo 159. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`840 kg | 2`010 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`275 kg | 1`445 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 565 kg | 565 kg | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | Alfa Romeo 159 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 6 has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Alfa Romeo 159, so Alfa Romeo 159 quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 2400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.3/10 | 8.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Alfa Romeo 159 has
| |