Ford Mondeo 2003 vs Opel Omega 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.6 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Ford Mondeo) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Opel Omega) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 180 HP | |
| Torque: | 245 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.4 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Opel Omega is a more dynamic driving. Ford Mondeo engine produces 90 HP less power than Opel Omega, but torque is 5 NM more than Opel Omega. Due to the lower power, Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 3.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.0 | 10.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.7 l/100km | 10.5 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Mondeo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 4.7 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 705 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 3.8 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 | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 1190 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 830 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Mondeo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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. | |||
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, if possible |
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: | 2`140 kg | 2`290 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`545 kg | 1`733 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 595 kg | 557 kg | |
| 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 (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Opel Omega has
| |