Opel Omega 1997 vs Volvo V70 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.5 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 | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 205 NM | 290 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16.5 seconds | 10.2 seconds | |
|
Volvo V70 is a more dynamic driving. Opel Omega engine produces 40 HP less power than Volvo V70, whereas torque is 85 NM less than Volvo V70. Due to the lower power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 6.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 6.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo V70 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V70, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V70. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 68 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1040 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| 1250 km on highway | 1360 km on highway | ||
| 970 km with real consumption | 1060 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volvo V70) 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 Volvo V70 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 3 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Opel Vectra | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo S80, Volvo 850, Volvo S70 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo V70 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.82 m | 4.72 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.41 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 10 cm longer than the Volvo V70, 3 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 420 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1800 litres | 1580 litres | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage capacity. Opel Omega has 120 litres more trunk space than the Volvo V70. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Opel Omega (by 220 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.8 metres more than that of the Volvo V70, which means Opel Omega can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`265 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Volvo V70 has
| |