2009 Audi TT vs. 2006 Mazda 3
To start off, 2009 Audi TT is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Mazda 3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Mazda 3 would be higher. At 1,984 cc (4 cylinders), 2009 Audi TT is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Mazda 3 weights approximately 210 kg more than 2009 Audi TT.
Because 2009 Audi TT is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2006 Mazda 3. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Audi TT will offer significantly more control. 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. 2009 Audi TT has automatic transmission and 2006 Mazda 3 has manual transmission. 2006 Mazda 3 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2009 Audi TT will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Audi TT | 2006 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Audi | Mazda |
Model | TT | 3 |
Year Released | 2009 | 2006 |
Body Type | Convertible | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1984 cc | 1598 cc |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 200 HP | 0 HP |
Engine Bore Size | 82.5 mm | 78 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 92.8 mm | 83.6 mm |
Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1030 kg | 1240 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4180 mm | 4500 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1760 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1470 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2480 mm | 2650 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.8 L/100km | 8.9 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 55 L | 55 L |