Rover 400 1993 vs Opel Omega 1989
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 200 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 237 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 11.5 seconds | |
| Rover 400 engine produces 85 HP more power than Opel Omega, whereas torque is 67 NM more than Opel Omega. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.4 | 8.8 | |
| Rover 400 consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega, which means that by driving the Rover 400 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 60 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 650 km in combined cycle | 850 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 (Rover 400) 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: | 350'000 km | 480'000 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 Opel Omega engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Rover 200 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Frontera, Opel Calibra | |
| 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: | 4.37 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 | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage space. Rover 400 has 110 litres less trunk space than the Opel Omega. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 10.9 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 3000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 400 has
|
Opel Omega has
| |