Mazda 626 1991 vs Ford Scorpio 1992
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 117 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 173 NM | 171 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 626 engine produces 3 HP less power than Ford Scorpio, but torque is 2 NM more than Ford Scorpio. Despite less power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 7.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.5 l/100km | 9.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Scorpio, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 626 could require 30 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 626 consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Scorpio. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 890 km in combined cycle | |
| 700 km with real consumption | 760 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Scorpio 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 (Ford Scorpio) 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.70 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.43 m | |
| Mazda 626 is 3 cm longer than the Ford Scorpio, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 4 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 | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Ford Scorpio. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`675 | 1`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Scorpio has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Ford Scorpio has
| |