Rover 400 1999 vs Mazda 626 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 11.5 seconds | |
|
Rover 400 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 400 engine produces 5 HP more power than Mazda 626, but torque is 10 NM less than Mazda 626. Thanks to more power Rover 400 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 | 5.2 | |
| Rover 400 consumes 0.1 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 15 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1030 km in combined cycle | 1230 km in combined cycle | |
| 1270 km on highway | 1420 km on highway | ||
| 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. | |||
| 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`700 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Mazda 626 has
| |