Opel Omega 1997 vs Citroen Xantia 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.9 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: | 100 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 205 NM | 196 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.5 seconds | 15.3 seconds | |
| Opel Omega engine produces 10 HP more power than Citroen Xantia, whereas torque is 9 NM more than Citroen Xantia. Despite the higher power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 7.0 | |
| Opel Omega consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen Xantia, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 30 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1040 km in combined cycle | 920 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 1160 km on highway | ||
| 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 (Citroen Xantia) 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: | 460'000 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 Citroen Xantia engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 3 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Opel Vectra | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Citroen Xsara, Fiat Ulysse | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Citroen Xantia might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Opel Omega engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.82 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 16 cm longer than the Citroen Xantia, 3 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1800 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.4 metres less than that of the Citroen Xantia, which means Opel Omega can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`265 | 1`200 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Citroen Xantia has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Citroen Xantia, so Citroen Xantia quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Citroen Xantia has
| |