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: | 13.6 seconds | 13.5 seconds | |
| 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 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 5.5 | |
| 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 1.2 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 180 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: | 920 km in combined cycle | 1160 km in combined cycle | |
| 1190 km on highway | 1360 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: | 4.67 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Ford Mondeo is larger, but lower. Ford Mondeo is 1 cm longer than the Mazda 626, 4 cm wider, while the height of Ford Mondeo is 13 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 485 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1610 litres | 1677 litres | |
| 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 Mazda 626 (by 67 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo is 0.5 metres less than that of the Mazda 626, which means Ford Mondeo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`010 | 1`935 | |
| 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 (€): | 2000 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.3/10 | 7.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |