Mazda 626 1998 vs Volvo V40 1996

 
Mazda 626
1998 - 1999
Volvo V40
1996 - 1999
Gearbox: ManualManual
Engine: 2.0 Petrol1.9 Petrol
Camshaft drive: Timing beltTiming belt

Performance

Power: 136 HP140 HP
Torque: 178 NM183 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 10.5 seconds9.7 seconds
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving.
Mazda 626 engine produces 4 HP less power than Volvo V40, whereas torque is 5 NM less than Volvo V40. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later.

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 8.39.0
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy.
Mazda 626 consumes 0.7 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 105 litres of fuel.
Fuel tank capacity: 64 litres60 litres
Full fuel tank distance: 770 km in combined cycle660 km in combined cycle
950 km on highway880 km on highway
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: 480'000 km460'000 km
Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used.
Engine production duration: 17 years4 years
Engine spread: Used only for this carUsed 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.

Dimensions

Length: 4.66 m4.48 m
Width: 1.71 m1.72 m
Height: 1.52 m1.41 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 litres413 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down
1677 litres1421 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 meters10.6 meters
The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Volvo V40.
Gross weight (kg): 1`8501`740
Safety: no datano 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 (€): 800600
Rating in user reviews: 7.2/10 6.4/10
Pros and Cons: Mazda 626 has
  • lower fuel consumption
  • more full fuel tank mileage
  • longer expected engine lifespan
  • roomier boot
  • fewer faults
  • higher ratings in user reviews
Volvo V40 has
  • more dynamic
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv