Volvo 960 1990 vs Mazda 626 1988
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 61 HP | |
| Torque: | 225 NM | 121 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 20.8 seconds | |
| Volvo 960 engine produces 54 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 104 NM more than Mazda 626. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 6.9 | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Volvo 960 consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo 960 could require 240 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 80 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 940 km in combined cycle | 860 km in combined cycle | |
| Volvo 960 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda 626) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Volvo 960) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.85 m | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Volvo 960 is larger, but slightly lower. Volvo 960 is 26 cm longer than the Mazda 626, 6 cm wider, while the height of Volvo 960 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 992 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2125 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 9.9 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo 960 is 0.9 metres less than that of the Mazda 626, which means Volvo 960 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`065 | 945 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 3000 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo 960 has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |