BMW 3 series 1993 vs Mazda 626 1991
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| 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: | 102 HP | 117 HP | |
| Torque: | 150 NM | 173 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is a more dynamic driving. BMW 3 series engine produces 15 HP less power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 23 NM less than Mazda 626. Due to the lower power, BMW 3 series reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW 3 series consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that by driving the BMW 3 series over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW 3 series consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 52 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 650 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 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 (BMW 3 series) 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 520'000 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 Mazda 626 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Mazda MX-6 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.21 m | 4.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.39 m | |
|
BMW 3 series is smaller. BMW 3 series is 49 cm shorter than the Mazda 626, 5 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 325 litres | 455 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1030 litres | 747 litres | |
| BMW 3 series has 130 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 626. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in BMW 3 series (by 283 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW 3 series is 0.6 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`635 | 1`675 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data BMW 3 series has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW 3 sērija has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |