Mazda 626 1998 vs Mazda 3 2013
| 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: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| 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: | 100 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 8.1 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 50 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 160 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.2 | 4.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 5.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 1.1 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 165 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1230 km in combined cycle | 1240 km in combined cycle | |
| 1420 km on highway | 1410 km on highway | ||
| 1060 km with real consumption | 860 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 | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | Used also on Mazda 6, 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: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda 3 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 1998 2.0 engine: The engine is reliable if you use quality diesel. Turbine life is not very long, however. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.58 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.45 m | |
| Mazda 626 is 12 cm longer than the Mazda 3, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 502 litres | 364 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1263 litres | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 626 has 138 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| 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`770 | 1`910 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | 6800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |