Mazda 626 1999 vs Kia RIO 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Mazda 626) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Kia RIO) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 96 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 136 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 11.6 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 626 engine produces 14 HP more power than Kia RIO, whereas torque is 94 NM more than Kia RIO. Thanks to more power Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.8 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Kia RIO, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 195 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 2.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Kia RIO. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1080 km in combined cycle | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 760 km on highway | ||
| 1100 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: | 380'000 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: | 6 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | 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 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. | |||
| Mazda 626 1999 2.0 engine: The engine is reliable if you use quality diesel. Turbine life is not very long, however. | |||
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`770 | 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
| |