Opel Omega 2000 vs Ford Mondeo 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Double-row timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 245 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13 seconds | 13.4 seconds | |
|
Opel Omega is more dynamic to drive. Opel Omega engine produces 30 HP more power than Ford Mondeo, whereas torque is 35 NM more than Ford Mondeo. Thanks to more power Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 6.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 6.7 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Mondeo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1020 km in combined cycle | 930 km in combined cycle | |
| 1290 km on highway | 1190 km on highway | ||
| 1050 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 (Ford Mondeo) 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 | 350'000 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: | 4 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Frontera, Opel Sintra | Used only for this car | |
| 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: | 4.90 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.44 m | |
| Opel Omega is 10 cm longer than the Ford Mondeo, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Opel Omega is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1800 litres | 1700 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.1 metres less than that of the Ford Mondeo. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`265 | 2`140 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | Opel Omega has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Mondeo has serious deffects in 400 percent more cases than Opel Omega, so Opel Omega quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Ford Mondeo has
| |