2006 Mazda RX-8 vs. 2009 Peugeot 307
To start off, 2009 Peugeot 307 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Mazda RX-8. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Mazda RX-8 would be higher. At 1,997 cc (4 cylinders), 2009 Peugeot 307 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Mazda RX-8 (212 HP @ 7500 RPM) has 73 more horse power than 2009 Peugeot 307. (139 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Mazda RX-8 should accelerate faster than 2009 Peugeot 307.
Because 2006 Mazda RX-8 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2006 Mazda RX-8. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Peugeot 307, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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 RX-8 (216 Nm @ 5500 RPM) has 16 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Peugeot 307. (200 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2006 Mazda RX-8 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Peugeot 307.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Mazda RX-8 | 2009 Peugeot 307 | |
| Make | Mazda | Peugeot |
| Model | RX-8 | 307 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2009 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1311 cc | 1997 cc |
| Engine Type | dual-disk rotary | in-line |
| Horse Power | 212 HP | 139 HP |
| Engine RPM | 7500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 216 Nm | 200 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 5500 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4430 mm | 4350 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1780 mm | 1770 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2710 mm | 2610 mm |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 60 L | 50 L |
