Volvo 960 1990 vs Mazda 626 1988

 
Volvo 960
1990 - 1994
Mazda 626
1988 - 1990
Gearbox: ManualManual
Engine: 2.0 Petrol2.0 Petrol

Performance

Power: 190 HP109 HP
Torque: 280 NM165 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: n/a seconds10.7 seconds
Volvo 960 engine produces 81 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 115 NM more than Mazda 626.

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 11.28.7
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy.
Volvo 960 consumes 2.5 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 375 litres more fuel.
Fuel tank capacity: 80 litres60 litres
Full fuel tank distance: 710 km in combined cycle680 km in combined cycle

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 m4.59 m
Width: 1.75 m1.69 m
Height: 1.44 m1.46 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 litresno data
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down
2125 litresno data
Turning diameter: 9.9 metersno data
Gross weight (kg): no data1`100
Safety: no datano data
Quality: no data
above average
Average price (€): 30002200
Pros and Cons: Volvo 960 has
  • more power
Mazda 626 has
  • lower fuel consumption
  • lower price
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv