Ford Scorpio 1992 vs Mazda 626 1991
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 117 HP | |
| Torque: | 171 NM | 173 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is a more dynamic driving. Ford Scorpio engine produces 3 HP more power than Mazda 626, but torque is 2 NM less than Mazda 626. Despite the higher power, Ford Scorpio reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.1 l/100km | 8.5 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 Scorpio consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that by driving the Ford Scorpio over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Ford Scorpio consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 890 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Scorpio gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda 626) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Ford Scorpio) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.67 m | 4.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.39 m | |
| Ford Scorpio is 3 cm shorter than the Mazda 626, 1 cm wider, while the height of Ford Scorpio is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 455 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 747 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Scorpio is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mazda 626. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`750 | 1`675 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Scorpio has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Scorpio has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |