2004 Mazda 6 vs. 2012 Volvo S60
To start off, 2012 Volvo S60 is newer by 8 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 2,262 cc (4 cylinders), 2004 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2012 Volvo S60 weights approximately 173 kg more than 2004 Mazda 6.
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, 2012 Volvo S60 (3,200 Nm) has 2979 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Mazda 6. (221 Nm). This means 2012 Volvo S60 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Mazda 6.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Mazda 6 | 2012 Volvo S60 | |
Make | Mazda | Volvo |
Model | 6 | S60 |
Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2262 cc | 2000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 5 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 168 HP | 0 HP |
Torque | 221 Nm | 3200 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1436 kg | 1609 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4750 mm | 4628 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1864 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1483 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2776 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 7.4 L/100km | 7.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 9.8 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 67 L |