Volvo V40 1999 vs Mazda 626 1992
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 95 HP | 76 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 172 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.5 seconds | 15.6 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo V40 engine produces 19 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 18 NM more than Mazda 626. Thanks to more power Volvo V40 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 7.0 | |
|
The Volvo V40 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Volvo V40 consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that by driving the Volvo V40 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 210 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1070 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| Volvo V40 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.43 m | |
| Volvo V40 is 11 cm shorter than the Mazda 626, 3 cm wider, while the height of Volvo V40 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1315 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo V40 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mazda 626. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`840 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 600 | 600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.4/10 | 7.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V40 has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |