Mazda 626 1995 vs Opel Omega 1994
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 117 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 173 NM | 185 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 11 seconds | |
| Mazda 626 engine produces 19 HP less power than Opel Omega, whereas torque is 12 NM less than Opel Omega. Despite less power, Mazda 626 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 8.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 9.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mazda 626 consumes 0.8 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 120 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: | 60 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 740 km with real consumption | 790 km with real consumption | ||
| Opel Omega gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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: | 520'000 km | 480'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda MX-6 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Opel Astra, 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: | 4.70 m | 4.79 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Mazda 626 is smaller. Mazda 626 is 9 cm shorter than the Opel Omega, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda 626 is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 452 litres | 530 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 830 litres | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage space. Mazda 626 has 78 litres less trunk space than the Opel Omega. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda 626 is 0.4 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`645 | 2`010 | |
| 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 20 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda 626 has
|
Opel Omega has
| |