Mazda 626 1991 vs Volkswagen Polo 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 117 HP | 60 HP | |
| Torque: | 173 NM | 116 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 14.9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 626 engine produces 57 HP more power than Volkswagen Polo, whereas torque is 57 NM more than Volkswagen Polo. Thanks to more power Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 4.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.5 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 626 could require 225 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 700 km with real consumption | 650 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: | 520'000 km | 380'000 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: | 6 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda MX-6 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Vento | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Polo might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.70 m | 3.72 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is larger, but slightly lower. Mazda 626 is 98 cm longer than the Volkswagen Polo, 9 cm wider, while the height of Mazda 626 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 455 litres | 245 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
747 litres | 975 litres | |
| Mazda 626 has 210 litres more trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volkswagen Polo (by 228 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.5 metres more than that of the Volkswagen Polo, which means Mazda 626 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`675 kg | 1`400 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`185 kg | 985 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 490 kg | 415 kg | |
| Mazda 626 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 15 procentiem more than Volkswagen Polo. Therefore, Mazda 626 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Mazda 626 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Volkswagen Polo, so Mazda 626 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |