Mazda 626 1998 vs Volvo V40 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 102 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 215 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.5 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 2 HP less power than Volvo V40, but torque is 5 NM more than Volvo V40. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 | 5.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 6.1 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 626 could require 15 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 626 consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1160 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 1360 km on highway | 1420 km on highway | ||
| 1060 km with real consumption | 980 km with real consumption | ||
| 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 | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.41 m | |
| Mazda 626 is 18 cm longer than the Volvo V40, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 11 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 485 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1677 litres | 1420 litres | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 626 has 72 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V40. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 626 (by 257 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Volvo V40. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`935 | 1`800 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | Volvo V40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 626 has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Volvo V40, so Volvo V40 quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.2/10 | 8.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |