Mazda 626 1998 vs Ford Mondeo 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.8 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 177 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.5 seconds | 13.6 seconds | |
| Mazda 626 engine produces 10 HP more power than Ford Mondeo, whereas torque is 43 NM more than Ford Mondeo. Thanks to more power Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1160 km in combined cycle | 920 km in combined cycle | |
| 1360 km on highway | 1190 km on highway | ||
| 1060 km with real consumption | 910 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 280'000 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: | 6 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | Used also on Ford Escort | |
| 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. | |||
| 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 | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.39 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is smaller, but higher. Mazda 626 is 1 cm shorter than the Ford Mondeo, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 13 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 485 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1677 litres | 1610 litres | |
| Mazda 626 has 55 litres less trunk space than the Ford Mondeo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 626 (by 67 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.5 metres more than that of the Ford Mondeo, which means Mazda 626 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`935 | 2`010 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | low | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Mondeo has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 2000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.2/10 | 8.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Ford Mondeo has
| |