Ford Sierra 1990 vs Mazda 626 1988
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 80 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 119 NM | 141 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.6 seconds | 13.1 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Sierra engine produces 10 HP less power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 22 NM less than Mazda 626. Due to the lower power, Ford Sierra reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 8.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.5 l/100km | 8.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Ford Sierra consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that by driving the Ford Sierra over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford Sierra consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 630 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
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 (Ford Sierra) 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: | 4.51 m | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.46 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Sierra is 8 cm shorter than the Mazda 626, 3 cm wider, while the height of Ford Sierra is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Sierra is 0.8 metres less than that of the Mazda 626, which means Ford Sierra can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`000 | 1`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Sierra has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Sierra has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |