Ford Mondeo 2003 vs Opel Omega 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Double-row timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 245 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.4 seconds | 13 seconds | |
|
Opel Omega is a more dynamic driving. Ford Mondeo engine produces 30 HP less power than Opel Omega, whereas torque is 35 NM less than Opel Omega. Due to the lower power, Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 7.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Mondeo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega, which means that by driving the Ford Mondeo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 195 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 56 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 930 km in combined cycle | 1020 km in combined cycle | |
| 1190 km on highway | 1290 km on highway | ||
| 830 km with real consumption | 1050 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 (Ford Mondeo) 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 | 440'000 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: | 5 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Frontera, Opel Sintra | |
| 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: | 4.80 m | 4.90 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.50 m | |
| Ford Mondeo is 10 cm shorter than the Opel Omega, 3 cm wider, while the height of Ford Mondeo is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1700 litres | 1800 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo is 0.1 metres more than that of the Opel Omega. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`140 | 2`265 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | Opel Omega has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Mondeo has serious deffects in 400 percent more cases than Opel Omega, so Opel Omega quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Opel Omega has
| |