Mazda 6 2012 vs Mazda 626 1999

Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison

 
Mazda 6
2012 - 2015
Mazda 626
1999 - 2002
Body: Estate car / wagonSedan
The wagon generally has more cargo space due to a larger trunk door opening, a roof that extends as far back as possible, and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into cargo space. Sedans tend to be quieter than wagons due to a more isolated rear area.
Gearbox: Manual/AutomaticManual/Automatic
Engines: 2.0 - 2.51.8 - 2.5

Performance

Power: 145 - 192 HP100 - 167 HP
Torque: 210 - 420 NM152 - 230 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 7.9 - 10.2 seconds9.3 - 12.5 seconds
Select a car version for a more accurate comparison!

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 4.4 - 6.45.2 - 8.9
Mazda 6 petrol engines consumes on average 2.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than Mazda 626. On average, Mazda 6 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626.
This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version!

Dimensions

Length: 4.80 m4.61 m
Width: 1.84 m1.72 m
Height: 1.48 m1.43 m
Mazda 6 is larger.
Mazda 6 is 19 cm longer than the Mazda 626, 12 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 6 is 5 cm higher.
Trunk capacity: 502 litres502 litres
Turning diameter: 11.8 meters10.4 meters
The turning circle of the Mazda 6 is 1.4 metres more than that of the Mazda 626, which means Mazda 6 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces.
Gross weight (kg): ~ 2`038~ 1`648
Safety: no data
Quality:
average

above average
Average price (€): 74001000
Pros and Cons: Mazda 6 has
  • lower fuel consumption
Mazda 626 has
  • better manoeuvrability
  • fewer faults
  • lower price
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv