Opel Omega 2000 vs Citroen C5 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 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: | 120 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13 seconds | 11.6 seconds | |
| Opel Omega engine produces 10 HP more power than Citroen C5, whereas torque is 30 NM more than Citroen C5. Despite the higher power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 5.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 6.3 l/100km | |
|
The Citroen C5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 240 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 66 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1020 km in combined cycle | 1150 km in combined cycle | |
| 1290 km on highway | 1430 km on highway | ||
| 1050 km with real consumption | 1040 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Citroen C5) 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: | 440'000 km | 560'000 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 Citroen C5 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Frontera, Opel Sintra | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Peugeot 307, Citroen Xsara, Suzuki Grand Vitara, Peugeot 607 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Citroen C5 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.90 m | 4.76 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.77 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger, but slightly lower. Opel Omega is 14 cm longer than the Citroen C5, 1 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1800 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.4 metres less than that of the Citroen C5, which means Opel Omega can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`265 | 1`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | Opel Omega has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen C5 has serious deffects in 470 percent more cases than Opel Omega, so Opel Omega quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Citroen C5 has
| |