Ford Mondeo 1996 vs Opel Omega 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 177 NM | 205 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.6 seconds | 16.5 seconds | |
| Ford Mondeo engine produces 10 HP less power than Opel Omega, whereas torque is 28 NM less than Opel Omega. Despite less power, Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 7.7 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Mondeo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega, which means that by driving the Ford Mondeo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 920 km in combined cycle | 1040 km in combined cycle | |
| 1190 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 910 km with real consumption | 970 km with real consumption | ||
| Opel Omega gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Ford Mondeo) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Opel Omega) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 280'000 km | 460'000 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 Opel Omega engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Escort | Used also on Opel Vectra | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Ford Mondeo might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Opel Omega 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: | 4.67 m | 4.82 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.50 m | |
|
Ford Mondeo is smaller. Ford Mondeo is 15 cm shorter than the Opel Omega, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Mondeo is 11 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1610 litres | 1800 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo is 0.7 metres less than that of the Opel Omega, which means Ford Mondeo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`010 | 2`265 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Opel Omega has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Mondeo has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Opel Omega, so Opel Omega quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Opel Omega has
| |