Volvo S40 1996 vs Mazda 626 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.7 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 117 HP | |
| Torque: | 165 NM | 173 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is a more dynamic driving. Volvo S40 engine produces 2 HP less power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 8 NM less than Mazda 626. Due to the lower power, Volvo S40 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.6 | 7.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.7 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo S40 consumes 0.9 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 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo S40 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 680 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 520'000 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: | 4 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volvo V40 | Used also on Mazda MX-6 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.40 m | |
|
Volvo S40 is smaller, but slightly higher. Volvo S40 is 22 cm shorter than the Mazda 626, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Volvo S40 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 471 litres | 452 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
853 litres | no data | |
| Even though the car is shorter, Volvo S40 has 19 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 626. The Mazda 626 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo S40 is 0.4 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`645 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S40 has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.1/10 | 7.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Mazda 626 has
| |