Mazda 626 1997 vs Ford Mondeo 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 131 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 176 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
| Mazda 626 engine produces 16 HP less power than Ford Mondeo, whereas torque is 6 NM less than Ford Mondeo. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 8.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 480'000 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 Ford Mondeo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Ford Scorpio | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Ford Mondeo engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.58 m | 4.56 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.37 m | |
| Mazda 626 is 2 cm longer than the Ford Mondeo, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 502 litres | 460 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1290 litres | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 626 has 42 litres more trunk space than the Ford Mondeo. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.1 metres more than that of the Ford Mondeo. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`685 | 1`820 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | low | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Mondeo has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.7/10 | 8.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Ford Mondeo has
| |