Mazda 626 1994 vs Ford Sierra 1990
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.8 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 76 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 172 NM | 152 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.7 seconds | 16.4 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 626 engine produces 1 HP more power than Ford Sierra, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Ford Sierra. Thanks to more power Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Sierra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Sierra, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 626 could require 60 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 930 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km with real consumption | 880 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Sierra gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda 626) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Ford Sierra) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 300'000 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 | 3 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.70 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.41 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is larger, but slightly lower. Mazda 626 is 28 cm longer than the Ford Sierra, 6 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 626 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 455 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
747 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Ford Sierra, which means Mazda 626 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`715 | 1`150 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Sierra has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Ford Sierra has
| |