Rover 400 1996 vs Mazda 626 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 86 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14 seconds | 11.5 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is a more dynamic driving. Rover 400 engine produces 14 HP less power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 50 NM less than Mazda 626. Due to the lower power, Rover 400 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.7 | 5.2 | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Rover 400 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 Rover 400 could require 75 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 960 km in combined cycle | 1230 km in combined cycle | |
| 1240 km on highway | 1420 km on highway | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 370'000 km | 380'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Rover 200 | 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. Mazda 626 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Rover 400 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: | 4.32 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Rover 400 is smaller. Rover 400 is 26 cm shorter than the Mazda 626, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 400 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 370 litres | 502 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
720 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage space. Rover 400 has 132 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 400 is 0.1 metres less than that of the Mazda 626. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`720 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Mazda 626 has
| |