Mazda 626 1999 vs Volvo S60 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.3 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 250 HP | |
| Torque: | 152 NM | 330 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 6.8 seconds | |
|
Volvo S60 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 150 HP less power than Volvo S60, whereas torque is 178 NM less than Volvo S60. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 9.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 10.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S60, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 255 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 2.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 1030 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 690 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.59 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.43 m | |
| Mazda 626 is 1 cm longer than the Volvo S60, 9 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 502 litres | 424 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1034 litres | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 626 has 78 litres more trunk space than the Volvo S60. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 1.6 metres less than that of the Volvo S60, which means Mazda 626 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`685 | 2`010 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Volvo S60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 626 has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Volvo S60, so Volvo S60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.2/10 | 8.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Volvo S60 has
| |