Ford Mondeo 2000 vs Mazda 626 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Double-row timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 245 NM | 230 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.7 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Mondeo engine produces 20 HP less power than Mazda 626, but torque is 15 NM more 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): | 5.9 | 6.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 6.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that by driving the Ford Mondeo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford Mondeo consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 940 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 1210 km on highway | 1160 km on highway | ||
| 820 km with real consumption | 1060 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 380'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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 Ford Mondeo 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. | |||
| Mazda 626 1999 2.0 engine: The engine is reliable if you use quality diesel. Turbine life is not very long, however. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.68 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Ford Mondeo is larger, but lower. Ford Mondeo is 12 cm longer than the Mazda 626, 10 cm wider, while the height of Ford Mondeo is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 485 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1700 litres | 1677 litres | |
|
Ford Mondeo has more luggage capacity. Ford Mondeo has 55 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 626. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Mondeo (by 23 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo is 0.3 metres more than that of the Mazda 626. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`140 | 1`935 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Mazda 626 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Ford Mondeo, so Mazda 626 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.5/10 | 6.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |