Ford Mondeo 1996 vs Opel Omega 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 227 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.6 seconds | 10 seconds | |
| Ford Mondeo and Opel Omega have the same engine power, but Ford Mondeo torque is 7 NM less than Opel Omega. Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.7 | 11.0 | |
|
The Ford Mondeo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. 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. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 62 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 630 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 830 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| Opel Omega 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 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 | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Ford Cougar | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including 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. Opel Omega 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: | no data | 2`280 kg | |
| 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
| |