2006 Chevrolet Malibu vs. 2003 Mazda 6
To start off, 2006 Chevrolet Malibu is newer by 3 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 3,900 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Chevrolet Malibu is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Chevrolet Malibu (240 HP @ 5800 RPM) has 101 more horse power than 2003 Mazda 6. (139 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Chevrolet Malibu should accelerate faster than 2003 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, 2006 Chevrolet Malibu (327 Nm @ 2800 RPM) has 146 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Mazda 6. (181 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2006 Chevrolet Malibu will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Mazda 6.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Chevrolet Malibu | 2003 Mazda 6 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
Model | Malibu | 6 |
Year Released | 2006 | 2003 |
Body Type | Sedan | Station Wagon |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3900 cc | 1989 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 240 HP | 139 HP |
Engine RPM | 5800 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 327 Nm | 181 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2800 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4780 mm | 4690 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1780 mm | 1790 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1440 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2860 mm | 2680 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.2 L/100km | 8.5 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 64 L |