2003 Mazda 6 vs. 2010 Volvo C30
To start off, 2010 Volvo C30 is newer by 7 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. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Mazda 6 weights approximately 154 kg more than 2010 Volvo C30.
Because 2003 Mazda 6 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2010 Volvo C30. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Mazda 6 will offer significantly more control. 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, 2010 Volvo C30 (350 Nm) has 145 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Mazda 6. (205 Nm). This means 2010 Volvo C30 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Mazda 6. 2003 Mazda 6 has automatic transmission and 2010 Volvo C30 has manual transmission. 2010 Volvo C30 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2003 Mazda 6 will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Mazda 6 | 2010 Volvo C30 | |
| Make | Mazda | Volvo |
| Model | 6 | C30 |
| Year Released | 2003 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Station Wagon | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 159 HP | 0 HP |
| Torque | 205 Nm | 350 Nm |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 3 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1605 kg | 1451 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4710 mm | 4252 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1783 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1500 mm | 1448 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2639 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 62 L | 60 L |
