Mazda 626 1998 vs Skoda Octavia 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 101 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 12.1 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 626 engine produces 14 HP more power than Skoda Octavia, whereas torque is 25 NM more than Skoda Octavia. Thanks to more power Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 7.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
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: | 780 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 480'000 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: | 20 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Polo, Seat Toledo, Seat Ibiza | |
| 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. | |||
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: | 540 litres | 548 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1677 litres | 1512 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mazda 626 has 8 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`840 | 1`738 | |
| 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 (€): | 600 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Skoda Octavia has
| |