Opel Omega 1999 vs Toyota Corolla 2002
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 215 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.5 seconds | 12.6 seconds | |
| Opel Omega engine produces 40 HP more power than Toyota Corolla, whereas torque is 35 NM more than Toyota Corolla. Despite the higher power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.5 l/100km | 6.1 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Corolla is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 3.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Corolla, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 495 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 3.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Corolla. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 930 km in combined cycle | |
| 1040 km on highway | 1100 km on highway | ||
| 780 km with real consumption | 900 km with real consumption | ||
| Toyota Corolla gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Toyota Corolla) 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. | |||
| Toyota Corolla 2002 2.0 engine: The engine was known for its solid technical characteristics.
One of its drawbacks is the lack of hydraulic lifters, requiring periodic valve clearance adjustments. The next-generation 1AD-FTV engine was equipped with ... More about Toyota Corolla 2002 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.90 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.50 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 52 cm longer than the Toyota Corolla, 7 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 | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.8 metres more than that of the Toyota Corolla, which means Opel Omega can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`280 | 1`300 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Toyota Corolla has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 120 percent more cases than Toyota Corolla, so Toyota Corolla quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Toyota Corolla has
| |