Volkswagen Polo 1998 vs Mazda 6 2012
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The wagon generally has more cargo space due to a larger trunk door opening, a roof that extends as far back as possible, and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into cargo space. Sedans tend to be quieter than wagons due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 140 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.9 seconds | 9.1 seconds | |
|
Mazda 6 is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 65 HP less power than Mazda 6, whereas torque is 70 NM less than Mazda 6. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volkswagen Polo could require 300 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 560 km in combined cycle | 1050 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km on highway | 1260 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volkswagen Golf | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5, Mazda CX-3 | |
| 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. | |||
| Mazda 6 2012 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda 6 2012 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.14 m | 4.87 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is smaller. Volkswagen Polo is 73 cm shorter than the Mazda 6, 20 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 390 litres | 489 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1250 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 6 has more luggage space. Volkswagen Polo has 99 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.7 metres more than that of the Mazda 6, which means Volkswagen Polo can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`550 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 7000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |