Mazda Xedos 9 2001 vs Opel Omega 1999
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 164 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 212 NM | 227 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Opel Omega is a more dynamic driving. Mazda Xedos 9 engine produces 6 HP less power than Opel Omega, whereas torque is 15 NM less than Opel Omega. Due to the lower power, Mazda Xedos 9 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.7 | 10.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.0 l/100km | 11.9 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda Xedos 9 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda Xedos 9 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega, which means that by driving the Mazda Xedos 9 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda Xedos 9 consumes 0.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 68 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 630 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 830 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 630 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 (Mazda Xedos 9) 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: | 630'000 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 Mazda Xedos 9 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 626, Mazda MX-6 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Vectra, Opel Calibra | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda Xedos 9 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.88 m | 4.90 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Mazda Xedos 9 is smaller. Mazda Xedos 9 is 2 cm shorter than the Opel Omega, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda Xedos 9 is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 430 litres | 530 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 830 litres | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage space. Mazda Xedos 9 has 100 litres less trunk space than the Opel Omega. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda Xedos 9 is 0.4 metres more than that of the Opel Omega, which means Mazda Xedos 9 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`940 | 2`170 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda Xedos 9 has
|
Opel Omega has
| |