2002 Mazda 626 vs 2012 Saab 9-5
📊 Key Differences
- Fuel economy: 25 MPG vs 24 MPG combined — Mazda 626 is more efficient
- Annual fuel cost: $2400 vs $2500 — Mazda 626 saves $ per year
- Fuel type: Regular Gasoline vs Regular Gasoline
| Specification | 2002 Mazda 626 | 2012 Saab 9-5 |
|---|---|---|
| Year | 2002 | 2012 |
| Class | Midsize Cars | Midsize Cars |
| Fuel Type | Regular Gasoline | Regular Gasoline |
| Drive | Front-Wheel Drive | Front-Wheel Drive |
| Transmission | Manual 5-spd | Manual 6-spd |
| Cylinders | 4 | 4 |
| Displacement (L) | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| City MPG | 23 | 20 |
| Highway MPG | 29 | 32 |
| Combined MPG | 25 | 24 |
| Annual Fuel Cost | $2400 | $2500 |
| CO₂ (g/mile) | 355.48 | 370.2916666666667 |
🚗 2002 Mazda 626
Midsize Cars with 25 MPG combined fuel economy. Runs on Regular Gasoline. Front-Wheel Drive drivetrain.
Full Mazda 626 Profile →🚗 2012 Saab 9-5
Midsize Cars with 24 MPG combined fuel economy. Runs on Regular Gasoline. Front-Wheel Drive drivetrain.
Full Saab 9-5 Profile →🔗 Related