Mazda 626 1998 vs Audi A6 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 | 12.9 seconds | |
|
Audi A6 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 10 HP less power than Audi A6, whereas torque is 15 NM less than Audi A6. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 6.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi A6, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi A6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1160 km in combined cycle | 1200 km in combined cycle | |
| 1360 km on highway | 1480 km on highway | ||
| 1060 km with real consumption | 1140 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 580'000 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 Audi A6 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 2 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volkswagen Passat, Volkswagen Golf | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Audi A6 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 | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is smaller, but slightly higher. Mazda 626 is 14 cm shorter than the Audi A6, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 485 litres | 455 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1677 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Mazda 626 has 30 litres more trunk space than the Audi A6. The Audi A6 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.9 metres less than that of the Audi A6, which means Mazda 626 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`935 | 2`065 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Audi A6 has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.2/10 | 7.8/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Audi A6 has
| |