Mitsubishi Carisma 1997 vs Mazda 626 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 174 NM | 178 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 9.6 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Carisma engine produces 11 HP less power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 4 NM less than Mazda 626. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Carisma reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 8.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.4 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Carisma is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Carisma over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Carisma consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 890 km in combined cycle | 790 km in combined cycle | |
| 1110 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 810 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Carisma gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 480'000 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: | 23 years | 17 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volvo V40, Volvo S40, Mitsubishi Galant | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Carisma might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.43 m | |
| Mitsubishi Carisma is 11 cm shorter than the Mazda 626, width is practically the same , while the height of Mitsubishi Carisma is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 502 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
660 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Carisma has 72 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`685 | 1`685 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Mitsubishi Carisma has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 626 has serious deffects in 115 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Carisma, so Mitsubishi Carisma quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 6.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Carisma has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |