Mazda 626 1992 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: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Mazda 626) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Honda Accord) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 76 HP | 147 HP | |
| Torque: | 172 NM | 184 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.7 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Honda Accord is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 71 HP less power than Honda Accord, whereas torque is 12 NM less than Honda Accord. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 4.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 8.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.6 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 1.8 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 270 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 2.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 460'000 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 Honda Accord engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Honda CR-V | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
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): | no data | 1`890 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Honda Accord has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 626 has serious deffects in 270 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
| |