2006 Mazda RX-8 vs. 2011 Kia Rondo
To start off, 2011 Kia Rondo is newer by 5 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 2,399 cc (4 cylinders), 2011 Kia Rondo is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Mazda RX-8 (212 HP @ 7500 RPM) has 39 more horse power than 2011 Kia Rondo. (173 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Mazda RX-8 should accelerate faster than 2011 Kia Rondo.
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, 2011 Kia Rondo, 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 47 more torque (in Nm) than 2011 Kia Rondo. (169 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2006 Mazda RX-8 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2011 Kia Rondo.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Mazda RX-8 | 2011 Kia Rondo | |
Make | Mazda | Kia |
Model | RX-8 | Rondo |
Year Released | 2006 | 2011 |
Body Type | Coupe | Minivan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1311 cc | 2399 cc |
Engine Type | dual-disk rotary | in-line |
Horse Power | 212 HP | 173 HP |
Engine RPM | 7500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 216 Nm | 169 Nm |
Torque RPM | 5500 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4430 mm | 4550 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1780 mm | 1830 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1710 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2710 mm | 2710 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.4 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 60 L | 60 L |