Volvo S40 2000 vs Mazda 626 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 109 HP | 117 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 173 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is a more dynamic driving. Volvo S40 engine produces 8 HP less power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 28 NM less than Mazda 626. Due to the lower power, Volvo S40 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.9 | 7.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
| By specification Volvo S40 consumes 0.2 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 30 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 740 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
| 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: | 5 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Mazda 626 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 | 4.70 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, if possible |
853 litres | no data | |
| Even though the car is shorter, 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: | 1`750 kg | 1`645 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`255 kg | 1`160 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 495 kg | 485 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | Volvo S40 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 626 has serious deffects in 55 percent more cases than Volvo S40, so Volvo S40 quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.0/10 | 7.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S40 has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |