Mazda 626 1998 vs Volvo V40 2002
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.8 - 2.0 | 1.6 - 1.9 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 - 136 HP | 102 - 200 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 - 220 NM | 145 - 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 - 13.5 seconds | 7.3 - 12 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 - 9.1 | 5.4 - 10.4 | |
|
Mazda 626 petrol engines consumes on average 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than Volvo V40. On average, Mazda 626 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. 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 | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.41 m | |
| Mazda 626 is 18 cm longer than the Volvo V40, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 11 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 471 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1677 litres | 1421 litres | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 626 has 69 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V40. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 626 (by 256 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Volvo V40. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`844 | ~ 1`789 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.2/10 | 8.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |