2006 Mazda 6 vs. 2003 Mazda 3
To start off, 2006 Mazda 6 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Mazda 3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Mazda 3 would be higher. At 2,966 cc, 2006 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Mazda 6 (215 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 72 more horse power than 2003 Mazda 3. (143 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Mazda 6 should accelerate faster than 2003 Mazda 3. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Mazda 3 weights approximately 190 kg more than 2006 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 Mazda 6 (271 Nm @ 5000 RPM) has 84 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Mazda 3. (187 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2006 Mazda 6 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Mazda 6 | 2003 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Mazda | Mazda |
Model | 6 | 3 |
Year Released | 2006 | 2003 |
Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2966 cc | 1970 cc |
Horse Power | 215 HP | 143 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 271 Nm | 187 Nm |
Torque RPM | 5000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1120 kg | 1310 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4750 mm | 4430 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1760 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1470 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2730 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 8.7 L/100km | 6.5 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 12.4 L/100km | 11.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.7 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 55 L |