Mazda 6 2002 vs Mazda 626 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 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: | 166 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 207 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Mazda 6 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 6 engine produces 51 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 37 NM more than Mazda 626. Thanks to more power Mazda 6 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.1 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.2 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 6 consumes 0.9 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 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 6 consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 790 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 | 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: | 6 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. | |||
| Mazda 6 2002 2.3 engine: The most common problems with this engine are with the cooling system pump and thermostat, as well as with the engine cushions (which can cause vibrations), the lambda sensor and the intake manifold adjuster. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.69 m | 4.68 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Mazda 6 is larger, but lower. Mazda 6 is 1 cm longer than the Mazda 626, 7 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 6 is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 505 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1712 litres | 1677 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda 6 has 35 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. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 6 (by 35 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`935 | 1`840 | |
| 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 | 600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.3/10 | 6.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |