Chrysler Concorde 1993 vs Opel Omega 1994
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.3 Petrol | 3.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 163 HP | 211 HP | |
| Torque: | 245 NM | 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
| Chrysler Concorde engine produces 48 HP less power than Opel Omega, whereas torque is 25 NM less than Opel Omega. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.3 | 9.7 | |
|
The Opel Omega is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Chrysler Concorde consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chrysler Concorde could require 90 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 66 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 640 km in combined cycle | 770 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 (Chrysler Concorde) 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: | 560'000 km | 530'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Chrysler Grand Voyager, Chrysler Voyager, Dodge Grand Caravan | Used also on Opel Sintra | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Chrysler Concorde might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.15 m | 4.79 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Chrysler Concorde is larger, but slightly lower. Chrysler Concorde is 36 cm longer than the Opel Omega, 10 cm wider, while the height of Chrysler Concorde is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 473 litres | 530 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 830 litres | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Chrysler Concorde has 57 litres less trunk space than the Opel Omega. This could mean that the Chrysler Concorde uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`170 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler Concorde has
|
Opel Omega has
| |