Mazda 626 2000 vs Volvo S60 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.4 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 9.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo S60 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 53 HP less power than Volvo S60, whereas torque is 110 NM less than Volvo S60. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.8 l/100km | 6.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.6 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 90 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 S60. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1080 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 1340 km on highway | ||
| 1100 km with real consumption | 1070 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 560'000 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 Volvo S60 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo XC90, Volvo XC70, Volvo C30 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo S60 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo S60 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 626 2000 2.0 engine: The engine is reliable if you use quality diesel. Turbine life is not very long, however. Volvo S60 2001 2.4 engine: These diesel engines are frequently affected by intake manifold swirl flap seizures. This issue often leads to airflow disruptions and rough engine operation. The actuator for the turbocharger, which relies ... More about Volvo S60 2001 2.4 engine | |||
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 | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.6 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`500 | 2`030 | |
| 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 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.2/10 | 8.0/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Volvo S60 has
| |