Mazda 626 1999 vs Mazda 6 2013
| Body: | Sedan | Estate car / wagon | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The wagon generally has more cargo space due to a larger trunk door opening, a roof that extends as far back as possible, and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into cargo space. Sedans tend to be quieter than wagons due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 152 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 9.1 seconds | |
|
Mazda 6 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 65 HP less power than Mazda 6, whereas torque is 58 NM less than Mazda 6. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 7.2 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 6 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 626 could require 240 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 6. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 1030 km in combined cycle | |
| 1030 km on highway | 1240 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 860 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 6 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 420'000 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 Mazda 626 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-5, Mazda CX-3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 6 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda 6 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. | |||
| Mazda 6 2013 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda 6 2013 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.59 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.48 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is smaller. Mazda 626 is 21 cm shorter than the Mazda 6, 13 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 502 litres | 502 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 1.4 metres less than that of the Mazda 6, which means Mazda 626 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`685 | 1`990 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 6600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Mazda 6 has
| |