2006 Mazda 6 vs. 2013 Ford C-MAX
To start off, 2013 Ford C-MAX is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Mazda 6. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Mazda 6 would be higher. At 2,262 cc, 2006 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Mazda 6 (160 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 21 more horse power than 2013 Ford C-MAX. (139 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Mazda 6 should accelerate faster than 2013 Ford C-MAX. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Ford C-MAX weights approximately 368 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 (210 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 35 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Ford C-MAX. (175 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2006 Mazda 6 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Ford C-MAX.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Mazda 6 | 2013 Ford C-MAX | |
Make | Mazda | Ford |
Model | 6 | C-MAX |
Year Released | 2006 | 2013 |
Body Type | Sedan | Crossover |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2262 cc | 2000 cc |
Horse Power | 160 HP | 139 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 210 Nm | 175 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1386 kg | 1754 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4750 mm | 4409 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 2085 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1621 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2649 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 7.4 L/100km | 2.6 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 10.2 L/100km | 2.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 53 L |