2003 Mazda 6 vs. 2007 Holden Epica
To start off, 2007 Holden Epica is newer by 4 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 2,261 cc (4 cylinders), 2003 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Mazda 6 (164 HP) has 16 more horse power than 2007 Holden Epica. (148 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Mazda 6 should accelerate faster than 2007 Holden Epica.
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. Let's talk about torque, 2007 Holden Epica (320 Nm) has 112 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Mazda 6. (208 Nm). This means 2007 Holden Epica will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Mazda 6.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Mazda 6 | 2007 Holden Epica | |
Make | Mazda | Holden |
Model | 6 | Epica |
Year Released | 2003 | 2007 |
Body Type | Station Wagon | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2261 cc | 1991 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 164 HP | 148 HP |
Torque | 208 Nm | 320 Nm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline - Premium | Diesel |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4690 mm | 4805 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1810 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2700 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 8.9 L/100km | 7.5 L/100km |