1984 Mazda 626 Reviews - Page 3 of 4

1984 Mazda 626 diesel from North America

Year of manufacture1984
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission diesel Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.3 / 10
Distance when acquired183000 miles
Most recent distance200000 miles
Previous carVolkswagen Jetta

Summary:

A good deal if invested in

Faults:

Head gasket on second engine blew before I bought it.

Front wheel bearings were shot when I bought it.

Front brakes needed new rotors.

Hydraulic clutch master and slave cylinders were old and leaking.

General Comments:

I bought the car with a rebuilt engine and was ready to spend some money for a few other issues.

The repairs were inexpensive.

The head gasket was a recall from back in 1985, probably could have had the factory still do it.

Air filters hard to find.

Great mileage.

Fun to drive.

Just starting putting %50 bio-diesel in the tank.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 6th May, 2003

1984 Mazda 626 2.0L from Australia and New Zealand

Year of manufacture1984
First year of ownership2001
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 2.0L Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.4 / 10
Distance when acquired1855987 kilometres
Most recent distance2438612 kilometres
Previous carNissan EXA

Summary:

A reliable and quick sedan

Faults:

Side-skirts are badly disintegrated and have started to fall off.

Strange noises from the air conditioning compressor appeared at approximately 1,950,000 kilometers. This eventually led to the failure of the compressor.

Rear seat headrests have faded and worn badly due to heat and other sun damage. Interior upholstery throughout the car is also sun damaged.

Central locking is now starting to fail, with the front passenger unable to lock or unlock, the rear passenger unable to unlock and the rear driver seat unable to lock.

Electrical units, such as the cruise control system, failed soon after the compressor died.

The steering is slightly off-center.

General Comments:

This is a great first car for anybody that has just earned their license, the manual is nippy and reliable with very low fuel consumption.

The steering, due to not being power assisted, is a little too heavy for some. However, it holds the 'line' quite well and cornering is just plain fun.

Massive under-steer is evident when pushed a little too hard through corners.

Wheel-spin is common.

Seats are relatively comfortable for an older model car, although the upholstery needs to be covered up.

First through to third gear have acceleration 'flat spots'. This causes the car to keep revving without an increase in acceleration. It can be irritating, but the driver can overcome this with quick changing of gears. When this is overcome, the acceleration is linear and it feels as if the car always has something more to give. My top speed is 195 Kilometers per hour and times of 7 to 8 seconds for the 100km/h mark have been achieved.

The car does not like to start/'kick-over' when the engine is above, approximately, 70 degrees Celsius.

All in all, an excellent first car and a pleasure to drive.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 17th March, 2003

14th Feb 2004, 10:02

Mate 7-8 0_100...c'mon, I had an 83 that probably did it in around 15...and it was a fast one... they had 68kw and weighed well over a tonne...7-8...hahaha.

8th Apr 2004, 23:49

Yeah, 7-8 seconds to 100km/h, I don't think so. Maybe 17-18 seconds. I have an '84 Coupe, and there's no way you ever got to 195 km/h without a new engine.

17th Jun 2004, 22:40

The turbo version would juust about do those numbers if you were a real good driver, standard 626 is much slower.

2nd May 2005, 06:17

I have a 94 626 coupe and after reading that colcked mine at 12.349, to 100Kph and that's not a turbo..

23rd Jul 2005, 02:05

I have a 83 model with a reconditioned engine. it makes 0-100km in 8-9 seconds. perhaps the reason for your slow performance is bad driving? I have also reached speeds of 160km per hour with plenty more to give. these results are not as unlikely as you think.

3rd Nov 2005, 22:43

I have the same model and it is unbelievably fast for a 1.3 tonne clunker. I have ripped off newer V6 "common-doors" quite easily at the lights with power to spare (though it does get screaming). My 0-100 estimate is around 8 seconds.

Mine is an automatic. Only problem with leadfooting is that it chews up a lot of fuel. And I do not think it's good for the torque converter.

The old suzuki sierra I had before this car went to 0-100 in about 13 seconds (tested at a club day) and that was slow. To me anyway.

8th Aug 2007, 03:39

If well looked after and regularly serviced the 2.0l versions perform very well considering their age and output.

26th Jan 2008, 20:45

The best you'll get out of an Australian spec 2 litre manual 626 sedan from 0-100km/h is 11.8 seconds. The automatic is about 1.2 seconds slower, on average. Top speed is not quite 180km/h.

A New Zealand spec 2 litre manual sedan will do 0-100km/h in 10.8 seconds, due to not having the same emissions control gear as the Aussie spec version. The top speed is 185km/h.

Average review marks: 7.4 / 10, based on 10 reviews