Volvo S40 1996 vs Mazda 626 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.7 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 165 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is a more dynamic driving. Volvo S40 and Mazda 626 have the same engine power, but Volvo S40 torque is 5 NM less than Mazda 626. Volvo S40 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.6 | 7.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.7 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo S40 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo S40 could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo S40 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 800 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 20 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volvo V40 | 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volvo S40 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: | 4.48 m | 4.58 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.43 m | |
| Volvo S40 is 10 cm shorter than the Mazda 626, 1 cm wider, while the height of Volvo S40 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 471 litres | 502 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
853 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage space. Volvo S40 has 31 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo S40 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mazda 626, which means Volvo S40 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`720 | 1`685 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S40 has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.1/10 | 6.7/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Mazda 626 has
| |