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 Petrol | 2.2 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 144 HP | |
| Torque: | 178 NM | 203 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.6 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
| Mazda 626 engine produces 8 HP less power than Opel Omega, whereas torque is 25 NM less than Opel Omega. Despite less power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.1 | 9.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.3 l/100km | 9.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 1.5 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 225 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 790 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 770 km with real consumption | 780 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. | |||
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`685 | 2`080 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Opel Omega has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 626, so Opel Omega quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Opel Omega has
| |