Chrysler 300M 1998 vs Opel Omega 1999
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.5 Petrol | 2.2 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 254 HP | 144 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 203 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.8 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Chrysler 300M is more dynamic to drive. Chrysler 300M engine produces 110 HP more power than Opel Omega, whereas torque is 137 NM more than Opel Omega. Thanks to more power Chrysler 300M reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.7 | 9.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.3 l/100km | 9.6 l/100km | |
|
The Opel Omega is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chrysler 300M consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chrysler 300M could require 165 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chrysler 300M consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 590 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 750 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 560 km with real consumption | 780 km with real consumption | ||
| Opel Omega gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Chrysler 300M) 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.00 m | 4.90 m | |
| Width: | 1.92 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Chrysler 300M is larger, but slightly lower. Chrysler 300M is 10 cm longer than the Opel Omega, 14 cm wider, while the height of Chrysler 300M is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 530 litres | 530 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
530 litres | 830 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.5 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chrysler 300M is 0.5 metres more than that of the Opel Omega, which means Chrysler 300M can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`120 | 2`080 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler 300M has
|
Opel Omega has
| |