1996 Ford Synergy 2010 vs. 2003 Mazda 6
To start off, 2003 Mazda 6 is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Ford Synergy 2010. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Ford Synergy 2010 would be higher. At 1,594 cc (4 cylinders), 2003 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 1996 Ford Synergy 2010 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1996 Ford Synergy 2010. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Mazda 6, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control.
Compare all specifications:
| 1996 Ford Synergy 2010 | 2003 Mazda 6 | |
| Make | Ford | Mazda |
| Model | Synergy 2010 | 6 |
| Year Released | 1996 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Middle | Front |
| Engine Size | 999 cc | 1594 cc |
| Engine Type | electric | in-line |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 104 HP |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
