Mazda 626 1999 vs Mercedes C class 2000
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 129 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 185 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.1 seconds | 11.6 seconds | |
|
Mercedes C class is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 14 HP less power than Mercedes C class, whereas torque is 15 NM less than Mercedes C class. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 9.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.6 l/100km | 10.0 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 Mercedes C class, 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 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mercedes C class. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| 740 km with real consumption | 620 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. | |||
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 (Mercedes C class) 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.59 m | 4.53 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.43 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Mazda 626 is 6 cm longer than the Mercedes C class, 2 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 502 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.4 metres less than that of the Mercedes C class, which means Mazda 626 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`525 | 1`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Mazda 626 has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mercedes C class, so Mazda 626 quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.2/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Mercedes C klase has
| |