Mazda 626 1992 vs Opel Omega 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 153 NM | 175 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.9 seconds | 14 seconds | |
| Mazda 626 engine produces 26 HP less power than Opel Omega, whereas torque is 22 NM less than Opel Omega. Despite less power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.3 | 9.2 | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda 626 consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 135 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 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 (Mazda 626) 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: | 420'000 km | 560'000 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: | 20 years | 4 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 626 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: | 4.59 m | 4.82 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.50 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is smaller. Mazda 626 is 23 cm shorter than the Opel Omega, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1315 litres | 1800 litres | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage space. Mazda 626 has 110 litres less trunk space than the Opel Omega. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Opel Omega (by 485 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Opel Omega. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`760 | 2`010 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Opel Omega has
| |