2003 Mazda 6 vs. 2006 Mazda 3
To start off, 2006 Mazda 3 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Mazda 6. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Mazda 6 would be higher. At 1,998 cc (4 cylinders), 2003 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Mazda 6 weights approximately 245 kg more than 2006 Mazda 3.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear wheel drive vehicles. 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:
| 2003 Mazda 6 | 2006 Mazda 3 | |
| Make | Mazda | Mazda |
| Model | 6 | 3 |
| Year Released | 2003 | 2006 |
| Body Type | Station Wagon | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1998 cc | 1598 cc |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 144 HP | 0 HP |
| Engine Bore Size | 86 mm | 78 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 86 mm | 83.6 mm |
| Acceleration 0-100mph | 10.7 seconds | 11.3 seconds |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1485 kg | 1240 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4680 mm | 4500 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1470 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2650 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 6.5 L/100km | 8.9 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 55 L |
