Subaru Outback 2017 vs Mazda 6 2015
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Subaru Outback) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Mazda 6) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 175 HP | 175 HP | |
| Torque: | 235 NM | 420 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.2 seconds | 8.6 seconds | |
|
Mazda 6 is a more dynamic driving. Subaru Outback and Mazda 6 have the same engine power, but Subaru Outback torque is 185 NM less than Mazda 6. Subaru Outback reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 4.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.6 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Subaru Outback consumes 2.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Subaru Outback could require 420 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Subaru Outback consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 1260 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 1470 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 910 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. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Ground clearance: | 200 mm (7.9 inches) | 165 mm (6.5 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Subaru Outback 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 | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 16 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Subaru Forester, Subaru Legacy | Used also on Mazda CX-5 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Subaru Outback might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda 6 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: | 4.82 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.48 m | |
| Subaru Outback is 2 cm longer than the Mazda 6, width is practically the same , while the height of Subaru Outback is 20 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 512 litres | 522 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1848 litres | 1664 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 2`100 kg | 2`110 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`592 kg | 1`500 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 508 kg | 610 kg | |
| Subaru Outback load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 20 procentiem less than Mazda 6. Therefore, Mazda 6 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 15 200 | 8200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Outback has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |