Opel Omega 1999 vs Peugeot 307 2002
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 138 HP | |
| Torque: | 227 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
| Opel Omega engine produces 32 HP more power than Peugeot 307, whereas torque is 37 NM more than Peugeot 307. Despite the higher power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.1 | 8.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.9 l/100km | 10.0 l/100km | |
|
The Peugeot 307 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 2.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Peugeot 307, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 345 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Peugeot 307. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Peugeot 307) 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: | 560'000 km | 420'000 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: | 6 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Vectra, Opel Calibra | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Citroen Xsara, Peugeot 407, Peugeot 206, Citroen Xsara Picasso | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Peugeot 307 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.90 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.51 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger, but slightly lower. Opel Omega is 48 cm longer than the Peugeot 307, 2 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 340 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1800 litres | 1540 litres | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage capacity. Opel Omega has 200 litres more trunk space than the Peugeot 307. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Opel Omega (by 260 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`280 | 1`977 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | Peugeot 307 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 120 percent more cases than Peugeot 307, so Peugeot 307 quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Peugeot 307 has
| |