Mazda 626 1998 vs Volvo 850 1996
| Body: | Hatchback | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 290 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo 850 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 40 HP less power than Volvo 850, whereas torque is 70 NM less than Volvo 850. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 850, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 850. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 73 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1230 km in combined cycle | 1100 km in combined cycle | |
| 1420 km on highway | 1400 km on highway | ||
| 1060 km with real consumption | 1100 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 560'000 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 Volvo 850 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 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S70 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo 850 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo 850 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 | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.41 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is smaller, but slightly higher. Mazda 626 is 9 cm shorter than the Volvo 850, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 502 litres | 445 litres | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Mazda 626 has 57 litres more trunk space than the Volvo 850. The Volvo 850 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Volvo 850. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`770 | 1`960 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo 850 has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.7/10 | 8.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Volvo 850 has
| |