Ford Mondeo 1996 vs Mazda 626 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 177 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.2 seconds | 11.5 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Mondeo engine produces 10 HP less power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 43 NM less than Mazda 626. Due to the lower power, Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 5.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Ford Mondeo could require 165 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 1230 km in combined cycle | |
| 1290 km on highway | 1420 km on highway | ||
| 910 km with real consumption | 1060 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 380'000 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: | 7 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Escort | 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. | |||
| Mazda 626 1998 2.0 engine: The engine is reliable if you use quality diesel. Turbine life is not very long, however. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.56 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.37 m | 1.43 m | |
| Ford Mondeo is 2 cm shorter than the Mazda 626, 4 cm wider, while the height of Ford Mondeo is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 460 litres | 502 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1290 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage space. Ford Mondeo has 42 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo is 0.1 metres less than that of the Mazda 626. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`860 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Mondeo has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.3/10 | 6.7/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |