Opel Omega 2000 vs Rover 75 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 120 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 260 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13 seconds | 12.3 seconds | |
| Opel Omega engine produces 4 HP more power than Rover 75, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Rover 75. Despite the higher power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 6.3 l/100km | |
|
The Rover 75 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Rover 75, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 225 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 Rover 75. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1020 km in combined cycle | 1120 km in combined cycle | |
| 1290 km on highway | 1380 km on highway | ||
| 1050 km with real consumption | 1030 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Rover 75) 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.90 m | 4.79 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.42 m | |
| Opel Omega is 11 cm longer than the Rover 75, width is practically the same , while the height of Opel Omega is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 400 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1800 litres | 1222 litres | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage capacity. Opel Omega has 140 litres more trunk space than the Rover 75. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Opel Omega (by 578 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.4 metres less than that of the Rover 75, which means Opel Omega can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`265 | 2`090 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Rover 75 has
| |