Volvo V40 1996 vs Mazda 626 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 140 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 183 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.7 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
|
Volvo V40 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo V40 engine produces 25 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 13 NM more than Mazda 626. Thanks to more power Volvo V40 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.0 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo V40 consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo V40 could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo V40 consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 640 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 460'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 20 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Volvo S40 | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volvo V40 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 | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.72 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.52 m | |
| Volvo V40 is 18 cm shorter than the Mazda 626, 1 cm wider, while the height of Volvo V40 is 11 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 413 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1421 litres | 1677 litres | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage space. Volvo V40 has 127 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 626. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 626 (by 256 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): | 1`740 | 1`840 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo V40 has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 6.4/10 | 7.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo V40 has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |