Mazda 626 1998 vs Rover 400 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 86 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 14 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 626 engine produces 14 HP more power than Rover 400, whereas torque is 50 NM more than Rover 400. Thanks to more power Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 5.7 | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 626 consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Rover 400, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1230 km in combined cycle | 960 km in combined cycle | |
| 1420 km on highway | 1240 km on highway | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 370'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | Used also on Rover 200 | |
| 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 Rover 400 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 1998 2.0 engine: The engine is reliable if you use quality diesel. Turbine life is not very long, however. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.58 m | 4.32 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.39 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is larger. Mazda 626 is 26 cm longer than the Rover 400, 1 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 626 is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 502 litres | 370 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 720 litres | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 626 has 132 litres more trunk space than the Rover 400. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.1 metres more than that of the Rover 400. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`770 | 1`720 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
| |