Mazda 626 1991 vs Honda Accord 1998
| 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: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 106 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 157 NM | 175 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.9 seconds | 10.4 seconds | |
|
Honda Accord is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 30 HP less power than Honda Accord, whereas torque is 18 NM less than Honda Accord. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 8.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.2 l/100km | 8.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 150 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 440'000 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 | 9 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Honda Accord might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mazda 626 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: | 4.70 m | 4.60 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.43 m | |
| Mazda 626 is 10 cm longer than the Honda Accord, width is practically the same , while the height of Mazda 626 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 455 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
747 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 626 has 25 litres more trunk space than the Honda Accord. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.1 metres less than that of the Honda Accord. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`675 | 1`890 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Honda Accord has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 626 has serious deffects in 295 percent more cases than Honda Accord, so Honda Accord quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Honda Accord has
| |