Mazda 626 1998 vs Ford Mondeo 1996
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 131 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 176 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.5 seconds | 12.2 seconds | |
|
Ford Mondeo is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 16 HP less power than Ford Mondeo, whereas torque is 6 NM less than Ford Mondeo. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.4 l/100km | 10.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 840 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 620 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 Ford Mondeo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Ford Scorpio | |
| 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 Ford Mondeo 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 | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.39 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is smaller, but higher. Mazda 626 is 1 cm shorter than the Ford Mondeo, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 13 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1677 litres | 1610 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.5 metres more than that of the Ford Mondeo, which means Mazda 626 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`800 | 1`955 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | low | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Mondeo has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.2/10 | 8.3/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Ford Mondeo has
| |