Mazda 626 1998 vs Skoda Octavia 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.5 seconds | 13.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 626 engine produces 10 HP more power than Skoda Octavia, whereas torque is 10 NM more than Skoda Octavia. Thanks to more power Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 5.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 5.3 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Octavia is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Octavia, 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 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Octavia. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1160 km in combined cycle | 1050 km in combined cycle | |
| 1360 km on highway | 1270 km on highway | ||
| 1060 km with real consumption | 1030 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: | 380'000 km | 610'000 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 Skoda Octavia engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Audi A3, Volkswagen Bora, Seat Leon | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Skoda Octavia might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Skoda Octavia 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 1998 2.0 engine: The engine is reliable if you use quality diesel. Turbine life is not very long, however. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.66 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.45 m | |
| Mazda 626 is 15 cm longer than the Skoda Octavia, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 485 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1677 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`935 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | above average | |
| Skoda Octavia has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 626, so Skoda Octavia quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Skoda Octavia has
| |