Volvo XC70 2002 vs Mazda 626 1999
| Gearbox: | Automatic | 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: | 11.5 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC70 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo XC70 engine produces 53 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 110 NM more than Mazda 626. Thanks to more power Volvo XC70 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 6.3 | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Volvo XC70 consumes 2.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo XC70 could require 330 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 820 km in combined cycle | 1010 km in combined cycle | |
| 1020 km on highway | 1160 km on highway | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
|
Volvo XC70 has 4x4: Automatic four-wheel drive with torque transfer to rear axle via viscous clutch when front wheels slip. Electronic traction control on front wheels (TRACS), which operates at speeds up to 40 km/h (25 mph) | |||
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 XC70 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 S60, Volvo XC90, 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 XC70 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Volvo XC70 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: | 4.73 m | 4.68 m | |
| Width: | 1.86 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.56 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Volvo XC70 is larger. Volvo XC70 is 5 cm longer than the Mazda 626, 15 cm wider, while the height of Volvo XC70 is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 485 litres | 485 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1641 litres | 1677 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC70 is 0.8 metres more than that of the Mazda 626, which means Volvo XC70 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`935 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo XC70 has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2400 | 600 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 6.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC70 has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |