Mazda 626 1999 vs Volvo S40 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.7 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 152 NM | 165 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Volvo S40 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 15 HP less power than Volvo S40, whereas torque is 13 NM less than Volvo S40. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 8.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 8.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 150 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 1030 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| 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: | 560'000 km | 440'000 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 | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | Used also on Volvo V40 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 626 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo S40 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 | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.41 m | |
| Mazda 626 is 11 cm longer than the Volvo S40, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 502 litres | 471 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 853 litres | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 626 has 31 litres more trunk space than the Volvo S40. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.6 metres less than that of the Volvo S40, which means Mazda 626 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`685 | 1`720 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S40 has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.2/10 | 7.1/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Volvo S40 has
| |