Mazda 626 1999 vs Mazda 6 2012

Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison

 
Mazda 626
1999 - 2002
Mazda 6
2012 - 2015
Body: SedanEstate car / wagon
The wagon generally has more cargo space due to a larger trunk door opening, a roof that extends as far back as possible, and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into cargo space. Sedans tend to be quieter than wagons due to a more isolated rear area.
Gearbox: Manual/AutomaticManual/Automatic
Engines: 1.8 - 2.52.0 - 2.5

Performance

Power: 100 - 167 HP145 - 192 HP
Torque: 152 - 230 NM210 - 420 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 9.3 - 12.5 seconds7.9 - 10.2 seconds
Select a car version for a more accurate comparison!

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 5.2 - 8.94.4 - 6.4
Mazda 626 petrol engines consumes on average 2.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than Mazda 6. On average, Mazda 626 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6.
This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version!

Dimensions

Length: 4.61 m4.80 m
Width: 1.72 m1.84 m
Height: 1.43 m1.48 m
Mazda 626 is smaller.
Mazda 626 is 19 cm shorter than the Mazda 6, 12 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 5 cm lower.
Trunk capacity: 502 litres502 litres
Turning diameter: 10.4 meters11.8 meters
The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 1.4 metres less than that of the Mazda 6, which means Mazda 626 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces.
Gross weight (kg): ~ 1`648~ 2`038
Safety: no data
Quality:
above average

average
Average price (€): 10007400
Pros and Cons: Mazda 626 has
  • better manoeuvrability
  • fewer faults
  • lower price
Mazda 6 has
  • lower fuel consumption
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv