2003 Mazda 6 vs. 2012 Toyota Matrix
To start off, 2012 Toyota Matrix is newer by 9 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 1,989 cc (4 cylinders), 2003 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Mazda 6 (145 HP @ 3500 RPM) has 13 more horse power than 2012 Toyota Matrix. (132 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Mazda 6 should accelerate faster than 2012 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 (310 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 137 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Toyota Matrix. (173 Nm @ 4400 RPM). This means 2003 Mazda 6 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Mazda 6 | 2012 Toyota Matrix | |
Make | Mazda | Toyota |
Model | 6 | Matrix |
Year Released | 2003 | 2012 |
Body Type | Station Wagon | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1989 cc | 1800 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 145 HP | 132 HP |
Engine RPM | 3500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 310 Nm | 173 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4690 mm | 4366 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1765 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1549 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2601 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 50 L |