Ford Sierra 1990 vs Mazda 626 1988
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 61 HP | |
| Torque: | 152 NM | 121 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.4 seconds | 20.8 seconds | |
|
Ford Sierra is more dynamic to drive. Ford Sierra engine produces 14 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 31 NM more than Mazda 626. Thanks to more power Ford Sierra reaches 100 km/h speed 4.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.4 | 6.9 | |
|
The Ford Sierra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Sierra consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that by driving the Ford Sierra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 930 km in combined cycle | 860 km in combined cycle | |
| Ford Sierra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda 626) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Ford Sierra) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Mazda 626 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 3 years | 20 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 626 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.51 m | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.46 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Sierra is 8 cm shorter than the Mazda 626, 3 cm wider, while the height of Ford Sierra is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Sierra is 0.8 metres less than that of the Mazda 626, which means Ford Sierra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`150 | 945 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Sierra has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Sierra has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |