Mitsubishi Lancer 1994 vs Mazda 626 1991
| Body: | Sedan | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.3 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 106 HP | |
| Torque: | 108 NM | 157 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Lancer engine produces 31 HP less power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 49 NM less than Mazda 626. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Lancer reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.0 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 8.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Lancer is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Lancer consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Lancer over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Lancer consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 710 km with real consumption | 730 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 480'000 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: | 27 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Colt | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Lancer might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda 626 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.28 m | 4.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.38 m | 1.39 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Lancer is smaller. Mitsubishi Lancer is 42 cm shorter than the Mazda 626, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Lancer is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 455 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 747 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Lancer is 0.4 metres less than that of the Mazda 626, which means Mitsubishi Lancer can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`000 | 1`675 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Lancer has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |