Audi A6 1997 vs Mazda 626 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 165 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.4 seconds | 12.6 seconds | |
|
Audi A6 is more dynamic to drive. Audi A6 engine produces 75 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 85 NM more than Mazda 626. Thanks to more power Audi A6 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.9 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.1 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Audi A6 consumes 2.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Audi A6 could require 345 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Audi A6 consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 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. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 460'000 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: | 3 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Audi A4 | 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 Audi A6 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. | |||
| Audi A6 1997 2.4 engine: Engines is considered quite reliable. It features a cast-iron cylinder block and a timing system driven by a toothed belt, which operates only the camshafts for the exhaust valves. The intake valves are ... More about Audi A6 1997 2.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Audi A6 is larger. Audi A6 is 22 cm longer than the Mazda 626, 10 cm wider, while the height of Audi A6 is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 551 litres | 502 litres | |
|
Audi A6 has more luggage capacity. Audi A6 has 49 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.7 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Audi A6 is 1.3 metres more than that of the Mazda 626, which means Audi A6 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`030 kg | 1`680 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Audi A6 has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.8/10 | 6.7/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi A6 has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |