Mazda 626 1998 vs Volvo V40 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.9 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 183 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 25 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 13 NM less than Volvo V40. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 9.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 660 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 460'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Volvo S40 | |
| 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 Volvo V40 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 | 4.48 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: | 540 litres | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1677 litres | 1421 litres | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 626 has 127 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V40. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 626 (by 256 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`840 | 1`740 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo V40 has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.2/10 | 6.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Volvo V40 has
| |