2003 Mazda 6 vs. 2009 Toyota Matrix
To start off, 2009 Toyota Matrix is newer by 6 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 1,798 cc (4 cylinders), 2009 Toyota Matrix is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Toyota Matrix (132 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 28 more horse power than 2003 Mazda 6. (104 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Toyota Matrix should accelerate faster than 2003 Mazda 6. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Mazda 6 weights approximately 15 kg more than 2009 Toyota Matrix.
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, 2003 Mazda 6 (240 Nm) has 66 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Toyota Matrix. (174 Nm). This means 2003 Mazda 6 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Mazda 6 | 2009 Toyota Matrix | |
| Make | Mazda | Toyota |
| Model | 6 | Matrix |
| Year Released | 2003 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1594 cc | 1798 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 104 HP | 132 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 240 Nm | 174 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline - Premium | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1345 kg | 1330 kg |
| Wheelbase Size | 2610 mm | 2610 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 7.2 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
