Mazda 626 1999 vs Volvo V70 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
|
Volvo V70 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 53 HP less power than Volvo V70, whereas torque is 110 NM less than Volvo V70. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 6.7 | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 626 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V70, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 1040 km in combined cycle | |
| 1160 km on highway | 1290 km on highway | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 560'000 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 Volvo V70 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC90, Volvo XC70, Volvo C30 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo V70 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo V70 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: | 4.68 m | 4.71 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.49 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is smaller, but slightly higher. Mazda 626 is 3 cm shorter than the Volvo V70, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 485 litres | 485 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1677 litres | 1641 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.1 metres less than that of the Volvo V70. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`935 | 2`100 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo V70 has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.2/10 | 8.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Volvo V70 has
| |