Volvo S60 2001 vs Mazda 626 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 163 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 230 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.5 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Volvo S60 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo S60 engine produces 53 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 110 NM more than Mazda 626. Thanks to more power Volvo S60 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.5 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.5 l/100km | 5.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo S60 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo S60 could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo S60 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1070 km in combined cycle | 1080 km in combined cycle | |
| 1340 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 1070 km with real consumption | 1100 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 380'000 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 Volvo S60 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo XC90, Volvo XC70, Volvo C30 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo S60 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volvo S60 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. | |||
| Volvo S60 2001 2.4 engine: These diesel engines are frequently affected by intake manifold swirl flap seizures. This issue often leads to airflow disruptions and rough engine operation.
The actuator for the turbocharger, which relies ... More about Volvo S60 2001 2.4 engine Mazda 626 2000 2.0 engine: The engine is reliable if you use quality diesel. Turbine life is not very long, however. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.58 m | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.43 m | |
| Volvo S60 is 1 cm shorter than the Mazda 626, 9 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 424 litres | 502 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1034 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage space. Volvo S60 has 78 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo S60 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mazda 626, which means Volvo S60 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`030 | 1`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Volvo S60 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mazda 626 has serious deffects in 40 percent more cases than Volvo S60, so Volvo S60 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 6.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S60 has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |