Mazda 626 1998 vs Volvo V70 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 126 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.6 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
| Mazda 626 engine produces 11 HP less power than Volvo V70, the torque is the same for both cars. Despite less power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 10.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 9.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 1.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V70, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 270 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V70. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 860 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 730 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 Volvo V70 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo 850, Volvo S70 | |
| 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 V70 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 | 4.72 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.41 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is smaller, but higher. Mazda 626 is 6 cm shorter than the Volvo V70, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 11 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 420 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1677 litres | 1580 litres | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Mazda 626 has 120 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V70. The Volvo V70 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 626 (by 97 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Volvo V70, which means Mazda 626 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`840 | 1`970 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | low | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo V70 has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.2/10 | 8.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Volvo V70 has
| |