1996 Renault Clio vs. 2010 Mazda 6

To start off, 2010 Mazda 6 is newer by 14 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Renault Clio. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Renault Clio would be higher. At 3,700 cc (6 cylinders), 2010 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Mazda 6 (272 HP) has 22 more horse power than 1996 Renault Clio. (250 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Mazda 6 should accelerate faster than 1996 Renault Clio. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Renault Clio weights approximately 41 kg more than 2010 Mazda 6.

Because 1996 Renault Clio 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 Renault Clio. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 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. Let's talk about torque, 1996 Renault Clio (407 Nm) has 43 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Mazda 6. (364 Nm). This means 1996 Renault Clio will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Mazda 6. 2010 Mazda 6 has automatic transmission and 1996 Renault Clio has manual transmission. 1996 Renault Clio will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2010 Mazda 6 will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.

Compare all specifications: