Mazda 6 2010 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: | 147 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 184 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
| Mazda 6 engine produces 32 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 14 NM more than Mazda 626. Despite the higher power, Mazda 6 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.0 | 7.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.4 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 6 consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that by driving the Mazda 6 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 6 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 1180 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 860 km with real consumption | 790 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 20 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. | |||
| Mazda 6 2010 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: | 4.76 m | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Mazda 6 is larger. Mazda 6 is 17 cm longer than the Mazda 626, 9 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 6 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 519 litres | 502 litres | |
| Mazda 6 has 17 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 10.4 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. | |||
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`915 | 1`685 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Mazda 6 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 626 has serious deffects in 450 percent more cases than Mazda 6, so Mazda 6 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 4800 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 6 has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |