Rover 400 1990 vs Opel Omega 1989
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Rover 400 is available with front wheel drive, while Opel Omega can be equipped with rear wheel drive. | |||
| Engines: | 1.4 - 2.0 | 2.0 - 3.6 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 67 - 200 HP | 73 - 377 HP | |
| Torque: | 121 - 237 NM | 138 - 568 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.4 - 12.5 seconds | 5.4 - 19 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 - 8.9 | 6.9 - 11.0 | |
|
Rover 400 petrol engines consumes on average 1.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than Opel Omega. On average, Rover 400 equipped with diesel engines consume 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.37 m | 4.74 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Rover 400 is smaller. Rover 400 is 37 cm shorter than the Opel Omega, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 400 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 410 litres | 520 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 870 litres | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage space. Rover 400 has 110 litres less trunk space than the Opel Omega. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 400 is 0.7 metres less than that of the Opel Omega, which means Rover 400 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`560 | ~ 1`942 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 3000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 400 has
|
Opel Omega has
| |