Alfa Romeo 156 2000 vs Mazda 626 1997
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The wagon generally has more cargo space due to a larger trunk door opening, a roof that extends as far back as possible, and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into cargo space. Sedans tend to be quieter than wagons due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 144 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 12.6 seconds | |
|
Alfa Romeo 156 is more dynamic to drive. Alfa Romeo 156 engine produces 30 HP more power than Mazda 626, but torque is 1 NM less than Mazda 626. Thanks to more power Alfa Romeo 156 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.3 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.1 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Alfa Romeo 156 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Alfa Romeo 156 could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Alfa Romeo 156 consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 560'000 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: | 10 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Alfa Romeo 147 | 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Alfa Romeo 156 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: | 4.43 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.43 m | |
| Alfa Romeo 156 is 15 cm shorter than the Mazda 626, 3 cm wider, while the height of Alfa Romeo 156 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 360 litres | 502 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1180 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage space. Alfa Romeo 156 has 142 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Alfa Romeo 156 is 0.7 metres more than that of the Mazda 626, which means Alfa Romeo 156 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`800 | 1`680 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Alfa Romeo 156 has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.6/10 | 6.7/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Alfa Romeo 156 has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |