2003 Caterham 7 vs. 2006 Mazda 6

To start off, 2006 Mazda 6 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Caterham 7. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Caterham 7 would be higher. At 2,966 cc, 2006 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Mazda 6 (215 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 55 more horse power than 2003 Caterham 7. (160 HP @ 7500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Mazda 6 should accelerate faster than 2003 Caterham 7. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Mazda 6 weights approximately 629 kg more than 2003 Caterham 7. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

Because 2003 Caterham 7 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 Caterham 7. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 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, 2006 Mazda 6 (270 Nm @ 5000 RPM) has 94 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Caterham 7. (176 Nm @ 5750 RPM). This means 2006 Mazda 6 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Caterham 7.

Compare all specifications: