Mazda 626 1998 vs Volvo V90 1997
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
---|---|---|---|
Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
Mazda 626 is available with front wheel drive, while Volvo V90 can be equipped with rear wheel drive. | |||
Engines: | 1.8 - 2.0 (petrol, diesel) | 2.9 - 3.0 (petrol) | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 90 - 136 HP | 180 - 204 HP | |
Torque: | 145 - 220 NM | 260 - 267 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 - 13.5 seconds | 9.2 - 9.4 seconds | |
Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 - 9.1 | 11.0 - 11.7 | |
Mazda 626 petrol engines consumes on average 2.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than Volvo V90. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
Length: | 4.66 m | 4.86 m | |
Width: | 1.71 m | 1.75 m | |
Height: | 1.52 m | 1.45 m | |
Mazda 626 is smaller, but higher. Mazda 626 is 20 cm shorter than the Volvo V90, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 7 cm higher. | |||
Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 992 litres | |
Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1677 litres | 1702 litres | |
Volvo V90 has more luggage space. Mazda 626 has 452 litres less trunk space than the Volvo V90. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo V90 (by 25 litres). | |||
Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 9.7 meters | |
The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 1.1 metres more than that of the Volvo V90, which means Mazda 626 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`844 | ~ 2`100 | |
Safety: | no data | no data | |
Quality: | above average | no data | |
Average price (€): | 800 | 2200 | |
Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Volvo V90 has
| |