Mazda 626 1999 vs Mazda 3 2009
| Body: | Sedan | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.0 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: | 115 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.1 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 35 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 17 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.6 l/100km | 8.9 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda 626 could require 135 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 626 consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda MX-5, Mazda 5, Mazda CX-5 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Mazda 3 2009 2.0 engine: The engine tends to idle unevenly. Engine problems may also include the thermostat and cooling pump. This engine tends to consume more oil at higher mileages. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.59 m | 4.46 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.47 m | |
| Mazda 626 is 13 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 502 litres | 340 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1360 litres | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 626 has 162 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`525 | 1`835 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Mazda 3 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 626 has serious deffects in 840 percent more cases than Mazda 3, so Mazda 3 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 4200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |