Mazda 626 1997 vs Alfa Romeo 156 2000
| Body: | Sedan | Estate car / wagon | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The wagon generally has more cargo space due to a larger trunk door opening, a roof that extends as far back as possible, and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into cargo space. Sedans tend to be quieter than wagons due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 155 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 187 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 8.8 seconds | |
|
Alfa Romeo 156 is a more dynamic driving. Mazda 626 engine produces 40 HP less power than Alfa Romeo 156, whereas torque is 17 NM less than Alfa Romeo 156. Due to the lower power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 8.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 10.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Alfa Romeo 156, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Alfa Romeo 156. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 290'000 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: | 20 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Alfa Romeo 166, Alfa Romeo 145, Alfa Romeo Spider | |
| 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 Alfa Romeo 156 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.58 m | 4.43 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.42 m | |
| Mazda 626 is 15 cm longer than the Alfa Romeo 156, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 502 litres | 360 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1180 litres | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage capacity. Mazda 626 has 142 litres more trunk space than the Alfa Romeo 156. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.7 metres less than that of the Alfa Romeo 156, which means Mazda 626 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`685 | 1`820 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | Alfa Romeo 156 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 626 has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Alfa Romeo 156, so Alfa Romeo 156 quality is probably better | ||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 1200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.7/10 | 6.6/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Alfa Romeo 156 has
| |