Opel Omega 1994 vs Mazda 626 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 117 HP | |
| Torque: | 185 NM | 173 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
| Opel Omega engine produces 19 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 12 NM more than Mazda 626. Despite the higher power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 7.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.4 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
| Opel Omega gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| 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: | 480'000 km | 520'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Opel Astra, Opel Vectra, Opel Calibra | Used also on Mazda MX-6 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Opel Omega might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.79 m | 4.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.40 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 9 cm longer than the Mazda 626, 4 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 530 litres | 452 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | no data | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage capacity. Opel Omega has 78 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.4 metres more than that of the Mazda 626, which means Opel Omega can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`010 | 1`645 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | 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 (€): | 800 | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |