Mazda 626 1999 vs Volvo XC70 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 11.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC70 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 53 HP less power than Volvo XC70, whereas torque is 110 NM less than Volvo XC70. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 8.5 | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 626 consumes 2.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC70, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 330 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 1160 km on highway | 1020 km on highway | ||
| 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. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Volvo XC70 2000: Automatic four-wheel drive with torque transfer to rear axle via viscous clutch when front wheels slip. Electronic traction control on front wheels (TRACS), which operates at speeds up to 40 km/h (25 mph) | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 560'000 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 Volvo XC70 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC90, Volvo C30 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo XC70 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo XC70 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
| Mazda 626 1999 2.0 engine: The engine is reliable if you use quality diesel. Turbine life is not very long, however. Volvo XC70 2002 2.4 engine: These diesel engines are frequently affected by intake manifold swirl flap seizures. This issue often leads to airflow disruptions and rough engine operation. The actuator for the turbocharger, which relies ... More about Volvo XC70 2002 2.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.68 m | 4.73 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.86 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.56 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is smaller. Mazda 626 is 5 cm shorter than the Volvo XC70, 15 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 485 litres | 485 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1677 litres | 1641 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.8 metres less than that of the Volvo XC70, which means Mazda 626 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`935 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo XC70 has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 2200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.2/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Volvo XC70 has
| |