Mazda 626 1998 vs Volvo V40 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 122 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.9 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 32 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 25 NM less than Volvo V40. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 7.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 8.2 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 626 could require 45 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 800 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 420'000 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: | 7 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | Used also on Volvo S40 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 626 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.41 m | |
| Mazda 626 is 18 cm longer than the Volvo V40, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 11 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1677 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Volvo V40. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`840 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 626 has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.2/10 | 8.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |