Mazda 626 1988 vs Volvo 960 1990
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.9 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 109 HP | 204 HP | |
| Torque: | 165 NM | 267 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Volvo 960 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 95 HP less power than Volvo 960, whereas torque is 102 NM less than Volvo 960. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 11.0 | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 626 consumes 2.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 960, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 345 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 80 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| Volvo 960 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda 626) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Volvo 960) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 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 960 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo S90, Volvo V90 | |
| 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 960 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: | 4.59 m | 4.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is smaller, but slightly higher. Mazda 626 is 22 cm shorter than the Volvo 960, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 992 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2125 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 9.9 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`100 | 2`060 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 2200 | 3000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Volvo 960 has
| |