Mazda 626 1992 vs Volvo V40 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 76 HP | 95 HP | |
| Torque: | 172 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.6 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 19 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 18 NM less than Volvo V40. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.0 | 5.6 | |
|
The Volvo V40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 626 consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 626 could require 210 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.59 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.41 m | |
| Mazda 626 is 11 cm longer than the Volvo V40, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1315 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Volvo V40. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`840 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 600 | 600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.4/10 | 6.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |