Mazda 626 1991 vs BMW 3 series 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.9 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 117 HP | 105 HP | |
| Torque: | 173 NM | 165 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 13 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 626 engine produces 12 HP more power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 8 NM more than BMW 3 series. Thanks to more power Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 8.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.5 l/100km | 9.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 52 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 580 km in combined cycle | |
| 700 km with real consumption | 550 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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 (BMW 3 series) 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: | 520'000 km | 480'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda MX-6 | Used only for this car | |
| 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 | 4.21 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.39 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is larger. Mazda 626 is 49 cm longer than the BMW 3 series, 5 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 455 litres | 325 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
747 litres | 1030 litres | |
| Mazda 626 has 130 litres more trunk space than the BMW 3 series. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in BMW 3 series (by 283 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.6 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series, which means Mazda 626 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`675 | 1`675 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | BMW 3 series has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 626 has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than BMW 3 series, so BMW 3 series quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |