Mazda 626 1997 vs Mazda 3 2013

Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison

 
Mazda 626
1997 - 1999
Mazda 3
2013 - 2016
Body: SedanHatchback
The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area.
Gearbox: Manual/AutomaticManual/Automatic
Engines: 1.8 - 2.01.5 - 2.5

Performance

Power: 90 - 115 HP100 - 187 HP
Torque: 145 - 220 NM144 - 380 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 9.9 - 12.6 seconds8.1 - 13.6 seconds
Select a car version for a more accurate comparison!

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 5.2 - 8.54.1 - 7.6
Mazda 626 petrol engines consumes on average 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than Mazda 3. On average, Mazda 626 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3.
This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version!
Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy.

Dimensions

Length: 4.58 m4.47 m
Width: 1.71 m1.79 m
Height: 1.43 m1.45 m
Mazda 626 is 11 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 2 cm lower.
Trunk capacity: 502 litres364 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down
no data1263 litres
Mazda 626 has more luggage capacity.
Mazda 626 has 138 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3.
Turning diameter: 10.4 meters10.6 meters
The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mazda 3.
Gross weight (kg): ~ 1`709~ 1`864
Safety: no data
Quality:
above average

above average
Average price (€): 8006800
Pros and Cons: Mazda 626 has
  • roomier boot
  • lower price
Mazda 3 has
  • lower fuel consumption
  • fewer faults
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv