Mazda 626 1999 vs Mazda 3 2009
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 136 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 178 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.6 seconds | 9.1 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 14 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 9 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.1 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.3 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.7 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 105 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mazda 626 consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 790 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 770 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 420'000 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: | 17 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mazda 626 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 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 | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.47 m | |
| Mazda 626 is 1 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 502 litres | 430 litres | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 626 has 72 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`685 | 1`790 | |
| 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 | 3200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |