Mazda 626 1999 vs Opel Omega 1999
| Body: | Hatchback | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 110 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 205 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 15 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is more dynamic to drive. Mazda 626 engine produces 10 HP more power than Opel Omega, whereas torque is 25 NM more than Opel Omega. Thanks to more power Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.8 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega, which means that by driving the Mazda 626 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 2.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1080 km in combined cycle | 1130 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 1470 km on highway | ||
| 1100 km with real consumption | 930 km with real consumption | ||
| 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 (Mazda 626) 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: | 380'000 km | 460'000 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: | 6 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | Used also on Opel Vectra | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 626 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Opel Omega engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
| Mazda 626 1999 2.0 engine: The engine is reliable if you use quality diesel. Turbine life is not very long, however. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.59 m | 4.90 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is smaller. Mazda 626 is 31 cm shorter than the Opel Omega, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 502 litres | 530 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 830 litres | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage space. Mazda 626 has 28 litres less trunk space than the Opel Omega. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.6 metres less than that of the Opel Omega, which means Mazda 626 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`770 | 2`090 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | below average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Opel Omega has
| |