Mazda 626 1994 vs Mitsubishi Galant 1997
| 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 | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 76 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 172 NM | 202 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.7 seconds | 12.8 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Galant is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 14 HP less power than Mitsubishi Galant, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Mitsubishi Galant. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 7.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Galant, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 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 Mitsubishi Galant. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 11 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 | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.42 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda 626 is 7 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Galant, 1 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 626 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 455 litres | 470 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
747 litres | 1400 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda 626 has 15 litres less trunk space than the Mitsubishi Galant. This could mean that the Mazda 626 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Galant (by 653 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Galant. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`715 | 1`870 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | Mitsubishi Galant has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 626 has serious deffects in 135 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Galant, so Mitsubishi Galant quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Mitsubishi Galant has
| |