Mazda 626 1999 vs Opel Omega 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.2 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 | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 230 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 13 seconds | |
| Mazda 626 engine produces 10 HP less power than Opel Omega, whereas torque is 50 NM less than Opel Omega. Despite less power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.3 | 7.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 1 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 150 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mazda 626 consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 1020 km in combined cycle | |
| 1160 km on highway | 1290 km on highway | ||
| 1060 km with real consumption | 1050 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 | 440'000 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 | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Frontera, Opel Sintra | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| 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: | 4.68 m | 4.90 m | |
| Width: | 1.71 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.50 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is smaller, but slightly higher. Mazda 626 is 22 cm shorter than the Opel Omega, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 485 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1677 litres | 1800 litres | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage space. Mazda 626 has 55 litres less trunk space than the Opel Omega. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Opel Omega (by 123 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Opel Omega. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`935 kg | 2`265 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`385 kg | 1`730 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 550 kg | 535 kg | |
| 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 (€): | 600 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Opel Omega has
| |