Opel Omega 1999 vs Opel Astra 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
| 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: | 100 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 205 NM | 280 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
|
Opel Astra is a more dynamic driving. Opel Omega engine produces 20 HP less power than Opel Astra, whereas torque is 75 NM less than Opel Astra. Due to the lower power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 5.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 6.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 6.2 l/100km | |
|
The Opel Astra is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Opel Astra, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Opel Astra. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 52 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1110 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 1440 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 970 km with real consumption | 830 km with real consumption | ||
| Opel Omega gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Opel Astra) 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: | 460'000 km | 470'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 3 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Opel Vectra | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Opel Zafira, Opel Vectra, Opel Signum | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Opel Astra might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.90 m | 4.52 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.50 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 38 cm longer than the Opel Astra, 3 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1800 litres | 1590 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.1 metres less than that of the Opel Astra. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`265 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Opel Astra has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 360 percent more cases than Opel Astra, so Opel Astra quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Opel Astra has
| |