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 | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 235 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.5 seconds | 11.4 seconds | |
|
Skoda Octavia is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 10 HP less power than Skoda Octavia, whereas torque is 15 NM less than Skoda Octavia. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 5.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 5.6 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 0.4 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 | 1300 km on highway | ||
| 1060 km with real consumption | 980 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 | 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 Skoda Octavia engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Audi A3, Seat Toledo | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| 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 | 548 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1677 litres | 1512 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda 626 has 63 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Octavia. This could mean that the Mazda 626 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 626 (by 165 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`935 | 1`865 | |
| 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
| |