Mazda 626 1998 vs Ford Scorpio 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 260 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.5 seconds | 12.2 seconds | |
|
Ford Scorpio is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 15 HP less power than Ford Scorpio, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Ford Scorpio. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 8.5 | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 626 consumes 3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Scorpio, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 450 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1160 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 1360 km on highway | 1020 km on highway | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda 626) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Ford Scorpio) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
| 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 | 4.83 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is smaller, but higher. Mazda 626 is 17 cm shorter than the Ford Scorpio, 16 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 8 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 | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.4 metres more than that of the Ford Scorpio, which means Mazda 626 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`935 | 1`685 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Scorpio has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Ford Scorpio has
| |