Volvo S60 2000 vs Mazda 626 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.3 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 250 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 330 NM | 152 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.8 seconds | 11.8 seconds | |
|
Volvo S60 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo S60 engine produces 150 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 178 NM more than Mazda 626. Thanks to more power Volvo S60 reaches 100 km/h speed 5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.3 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.1 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo S60 consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo S60 could require 255 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo S60 consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 800 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. | |||
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: | 12 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo S60 is 1.6 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`010 | 1`685 | |
| 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 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.0/10 | 6.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo S60 has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |