2003 BMW M3 vs. 2006 Mazda 5
To start off, 2006 Mazda 5 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 BMW M3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 BMW M3 would be higher. At 3,168 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 BMW M3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 BMW M3 (342 HP @ 7900 RPM) has 185 more horse power than 2006 Mazda 5. (157 HP @ 6500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 BMW M3 should accelerate faster than 2006 Mazda 5.
Because 2003 BMW M3 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 2003 BMW M3. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Mazda 5, 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 BMW M3 (350 Nm @ 4900 RPM) has 149 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Mazda 5. (201 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2003 BMW M3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Mazda 5.
Compare all specifications:
2003 BMW M3 | 2006 Mazda 5 | |
Make | BMW | Mazda |
Model | M3 | 5 |
Year Released | 2003 | 2006 |
Body Type | Coupe | Minivan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3168 cc | 2262 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 342 HP | 157 HP |
Engine RPM | 7900 RPM | 6500 RPM |
Torque | 350 Nm | 201 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4900 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 6 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4620 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1760 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1640 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2730 mm | 2760 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 8.4 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 17.8 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.4 L/100km | 9.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 63 L | 60 L |