Mazda 626 1998 vs Volvo V40 2002
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.9 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 178 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.1 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 and Volvo V40 have the same engine power, but Mazda 626 torque is 12 NM less than Volvo V40. Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.1 | 8.9 | |
| Mazda 626 consumes 0.2 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 30 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
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: | 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
| |