Mazda 6 2002 vs Mazda 626 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 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: | 141 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 181 NM | 178 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 9.6 seconds | |
| Mazda 6 engine produces 5 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 3 NM more than Mazda 626. Despite the higher power, Mazda 6 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 8.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 6 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 6 could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 6 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 790 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 480'000 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: | 13 years | 17 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Mazda 6 2002 2.0 engine: The engine tends to idle unevenly. Engine problems may also include the thermostat and cooling pump. This engine tends to consume more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.67 m | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Mazda 6 is larger. Mazda 6 is 8 cm longer than the Mazda 626, 7 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 6 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 492 litres | 502 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda 6 has 10 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 626. This could mean that the Mazda 6 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 6 is 0.4 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): | 1`855 | 1`685 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Mazda 6 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 626 has serious deffects in 55 percent more cases than Mazda 6, so Mazda 6 quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.3/10 | 6.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |