Volkswagen Vento 1992 vs Opel Omega 1994
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 185 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.7 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Opel Omega is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Vento engine produces 46 HP less power than Opel Omega, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Opel Omega. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Vento reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 8.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 9.4 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Vento is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Vento consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Vento over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Vento consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 1110 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 790 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 (Volkswagen Vento) 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: | 420'000 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 | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Seat Toledo, Seat Ibiza, Seat Cordoba | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Opel Astra, 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. Volkswagen Vento might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.38 m | 4.79 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Volkswagen Vento is smaller. Volkswagen Vento is 41 cm shorter than the Opel Omega, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Vento is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 530 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 830 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.7 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Vento is 0.3 metres less than that of the Opel Omega. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`200 | 2`010 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Vento has
|
Opel Omega has
| |