Mazda 626 1999 vs Kia RIO 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 96 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 136 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 11.6 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 626 engine produces 19 HP more power than Kia RIO, whereas torque is 34 NM more than Kia RIO. Thanks to more power Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Kia RIO is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Kia RIO, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 626 could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Kia RIO. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 760 km on highway | ||
| 790 km with real consumption | 560 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: | 440'000 km | 320'000 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: | 20 years | 6 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Kia RIO engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.59 m | 4.22 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is larger, but slightly lower. Mazda 626 is 37 cm longer than the Kia RIO, 3 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 626 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 502 litres | 405 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1252 litres | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 626 has 97 litres more trunk space than the Kia RIO. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 9.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.9 metres more than that of the Kia RIO, which means Mazda 626 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`685 | 1`467 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Kia RIO has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Kia RIO has
| |