2009 Mazda 5 vs. 2003 Mazda 6
To start off, 2009 Mazda 5 is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Mazda 6. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Mazda 6 would be higher. At 2,260 cc (4 cylinders), 2009 Mazda 5 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda 5 (154 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 50 more horse power than 2003 Mazda 6. (104 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda 5 should accelerate faster than 2003 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, 2003 Mazda 6 (240 Nm) has 39 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda 5. (201 Nm). This means 2003 Mazda 6 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda 5.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Mazda 5 | 2003 Mazda 6 | |
| Make | Mazda | Mazda |
| Model | 5 | 6 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2003 |
| Body Type | Minivan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2260 cc | 1594 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 154 HP | 104 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 201 Nm | 240 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Number of Seats | 6 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Wheelbase Size | 2760 mm | 2610 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.8 L/100km | 7.2 L/100km |
