Mazda 626 1998 vs Volvo V40 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.9 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 21 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 20 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 | 8.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 8.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. 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 0.7 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 | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
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`790 | |
| 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
| |