2002 MCC Crossblade vs. 2003 Mazda 6

To start off, 2003 Mazda 6 is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 MCC Crossblade. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 MCC Crossblade would be higher. At 1,998 cc (4 cylinders), 2003 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Mazda 6 (139 HP) has 69 more horse power than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Mazda 6 should accelerate faster than 2002 MCC Crossblade. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Mazda 6 weights approximately 610 kg more than 2002 MCC Crossblade. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

Because 2002 MCC Crossblade 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 2002 MCC Crossblade. 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. Let's talk about torque, 2003 Mazda 6 (181 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 79 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM). This means 2003 Mazda 6 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 MCC Crossblade. 2003 Mazda 6 has automatic transmission and 2002 MCC Crossblade has manual transmission. 2002 MCC Crossblade will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2003 Mazda 6 will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.

Compare all specifications: