Ford Mondeo 1999 vs Mazda 626 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | 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: | 205 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 235 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Ford Mondeo is more dynamic to drive. Ford Mondeo engine produces 90 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 65 NM more than Mazda 626. Thanks to more power Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.1 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.0 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 1.9 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 285 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 610 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 820 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 620 km with real consumption | 800 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 440'000 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: | 1 years | 20 years | |
| 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. | |||
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 | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1610 litres | 1677 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`000 | 1`840 | |
| 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
| |