Volvo V90 1997 vs Mazda 626 1999
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
---|---|---|---|
Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Volvo V90 is available with rear wheel drive, while Mazda 626 can be equipped with front wheel drive. | |||
Engines: | 2.9 - 3.0 (petrol) | 1.8 - 2.0 (petrol, diesel) | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 180 - 204 HP | 100 - 136 HP | |
Torque: | 260 - 267 NM | 152 - 230 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 - 9.4 seconds | 10.5 - 12.5 seconds | |
Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.0 - 11.7 | 6.3 - 9.1 | |
Volvo V90 petrol engines consumes on average 2.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than Mazda 626. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
Length: | 4.86 m | 4.68 m | |
Width: | 1.75 m | 1.71 m | |
Height: | 1.45 m | 1.52 m | |
Volvo V90 is larger, but lower. Volvo V90 is 18 cm longer than the Mazda 626, 4 cm wider, while the height of Volvo V90 is 7 cm lower. | |||
Trunk capacity: | 992 litres | 540 litres | |
Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1702 litres | 1677 litres | |
Volvo V90 has more luggage capacity. Volvo V90 has 452 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 626. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo V90 (by 25 litres). | |||
Turning diameter: | 9.7 meters | 10.8 meters | |
The turning circle of the Volvo V90 is 1.1 metres less than that of the Mazda 626, which means Volvo V90 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`100 | ~ 1`866 | |
Safety: | no data | no data | |
Quality: | no data | above average | |
Average price (€): | 2200 | 600 | |
Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V90 has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |