Opel Omega 2000 vs Volvo XC70 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.4 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 | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13 seconds | 11.5 seconds | |
|
Volvo XC70 is a more dynamic driving. Opel Omega engine produces 43 HP less power than Volvo XC70, whereas torque is 60 NM less than Volvo XC70. Due to the lower power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.3 | 8.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Opel Omega is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC70, which means that by driving the Opel Omega over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC70. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1020 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 1290 km on highway | 1020 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) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Volvo XC70 2000: Automatic four-wheel drive with torque transfer to rear axle via viscous clutch when front wheels slip. Electronic traction control on front wheels (TRACS), which operates at speeds up to 40 km/h (25 mph) | |||
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 Volvo XC70 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 | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC90, Volvo C30 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo XC70 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Volvo XC70 2002 2.4 engine: These diesel engines are frequently affected by intake manifold swirl flap seizures. This issue often leads to airflow disruptions and rough engine operation.
The actuator for the turbocharger, which relies ... More about Volvo XC70 2002 2.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.90 m | 4.73 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.86 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.56 m | |
| Opel Omega is 17 cm longer than the Volvo XC70, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Opel Omega is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 485 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1800 litres | 1641 litres | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage capacity. Opel Omega has 55 litres more trunk space than the Volvo XC70. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Opel Omega (by 159 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.6 metres less than that of the Volvo XC70, which means Opel Omega can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`265 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Volvo XC70 has
| |