2004 Mazda 6 vs. 2010 Nissan X-Trail
To start off, 2010 Nissan X-Trail is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Mazda 6. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Mazda 6 would be higher. At 1,999 cc (4 cylinders), 2004 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Nissan X-Trail (148 HP) has 18 more horse power than 2004 Mazda 6. (130 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Nissan X-Trail should accelerate faster than 2004 Mazda 6.
Because 2010 Nissan X-Trail is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2004 Mazda 6. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Nissan X-Trail 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Mazda 6 | 2010 Nissan X-Trail | |
| Make | Mazda | Nissan |
| Model | 6 | X-Trail |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Station Wagon | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1999 cc | 1995 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 130 HP | 148 HP |
| Fuel Type | Diesel | Diesel |
| Acceleration 0-100mph | 10.6 seconds | 10 seconds |
| Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4690 mm | 4640 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1790 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1690 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2640 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 6.5 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 65 L |
