Honda Accord 1998 vs Mazda 626 1991
| Body: | Sedan | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.2 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 212 HP | 117 HP | |
| Torque: | 215 NM | 173 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.2 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
Honda Accord is more dynamic to drive. Honda Accord engine produces 95 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 42 NM more than Mazda 626. Thanks to more power Honda Accord reaches 100 km/h speed 3.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.6 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.1 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Honda Accord consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Honda Accord could require 240 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Honda Accord consumes 2.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 580 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 390'000 km | 520'000 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: | 11 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Honda Prelude | Used also on Mazda MX-6 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Honda Accord might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda 626 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: | 4.60 m | 4.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.39 m | |
| Honda Accord is 10 cm shorter than the Mazda 626, width is practically the same , while the height of Honda Accord is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 455 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 747 litres | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage space. Honda Accord has 25 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Honda Accord is 0.8 metres more than that of the Mazda 626, which means Honda Accord can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`820 | 1`675 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Honda Accord has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 626 has serious deffects in 295 percent more cases than Honda Accord, so Honda Accord quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Honda Accord has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |