BMW 3 series 1998 vs Mazda 626 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 11.5 seconds | |
|
BMW 3 series is more dynamic to drive. BMW 3 series engine produces 36 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 60 NM more than Mazda 626. Thanks to more power BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.7 | 5.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.3 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW 3 series could require 75 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1100 km in combined cycle | 1230 km in combined cycle | |
| 1400 km on highway | 1420 km on highway | ||
| 1000 km with real consumption | 1060 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 380'000 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 BMW 3 series engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on BMW 5 sērija | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The BMW 3 series 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. | |||
| Mazda 626 1998 2.0 engine: The engine is reliable if you use quality diesel. Turbine life is not very long, however. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.47 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.43 m | |
| BMW 3 series is 11 cm shorter than the Mazda 626, 3 cm wider, while the height of BMW 3 series is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 440 litres | 502 litres | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage space. BMW 3 series has 62 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 3 series is 0.4 metres less than that of the Mazda 626, which means BMW 3 series can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`875 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.5/10 | 6.7/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |