Mazda 626 1998 vs Volvo V40 1996
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.9 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 178 NM | 183 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.1 seconds | 10.8 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 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.1 | 9.3 | |
| Mazda 626 consumes 0.2 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 30 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 640 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 840 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 km | 460'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 17 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. | |||
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: | no data | 413 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1677 litres | 1421 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`800 | 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
| |