Ford Mondeo 1996 vs Opel Omega 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 131 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 176 NM | 175 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 14 seconds | |
|
Ford Mondeo is more dynamic to drive. Ford Mondeo engine produces 15 HP more power than Opel Omega, whereas torque is 1 NM more than Opel Omega. Thanks to more power Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.4 | 10.0 | |
|
The Ford Mondeo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Mondeo consumes 1.6 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 240 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 950 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 560'000 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 also on Ford Scorpio | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Ford Mondeo might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.67 m | 4.82 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.50 m | |
|
Ford Mondeo is smaller. Ford Mondeo is 15 cm shorter than the Opel Omega, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Mondeo is 11 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1610 litres | 1800 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo is 0.7 metres less than that of the Opel Omega, which means Ford Mondeo can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`955 kg | 2`010 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`373 kg | 1`515 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 582 kg | 495 kg | |
| Ford Mondeo load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 15 procentiem more than Opel Omega. Therefore, Ford Mondeo is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Opel Omega has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Mondeo has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Opel Omega, so Opel Omega quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Opel Omega has
| |