Subaru Outback 2003 vs Mazda 6 2008
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.0 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 belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 173 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 227 NM | 330 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.9 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Mazda 6 is a more dynamic driving. Subaru Outback engine produces 33 HP more power than Mazda 6, but torque is 103 NM less than Mazda 6. Despite the higher power, Subaru Outback reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.7 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Subaru Outback consumes 2.7 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 405 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Subaru Outback consumes 3.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 1060 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 960 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) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 370'000 km | 390'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda 5 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.73 m | 4.71 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.55 m | 1.44 m | |
| Subaru Outback is 2 cm longer than the Mazda 6, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Subaru Outback is 11 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 459 litres | 505 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1649 litres | 1751 litres | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, This could mean that the Subaru Outback uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 6 (by 102 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru Outback is 0.6 metres less than that of the Mazda 6, which means Subaru Outback can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight: | no data | 2`110 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 2400 | 2400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Outback has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |