Mazda 626 2000 vs Alfa Romeo 166 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 304 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Alfa Romeo 166 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 26 HP less power than Alfa Romeo 166, whereas torque is 74 NM less than Alfa Romeo 166. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 7.3 | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 626 consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Alfa Romeo 166, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 72 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1080 km in combined cycle | 980 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 1260 km on highway | ||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.59 m | 4.72 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.82 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is smaller, but slightly higher. Mazda 626 is 13 cm shorter than the Alfa Romeo 166, 11 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 502 litres | 500 litres | |
| Mazda 626 has 2 litres more trunk space than the Alfa Romeo 166. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 1.2 metres less than that of the Alfa Romeo 166, which means Mazda 626 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`500 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Alfa Romeo 166 has
| |