Opel Omega 1997 vs Suzuki Baleno 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 96 HP | |
| Torque: | 175 NM | 134 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
| Opel Omega engine produces 20 HP more power than Suzuki Baleno, whereas torque is 41 NM more than Suzuki Baleno. Despite the higher power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 2.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.0 | 7.5 | |
|
The Suzuki Baleno is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Opel Omega consumes 2.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Baleno, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 375 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 820 km on highway | ||
| Opel Omega gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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 (Suzuki Baleno) 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 | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Suzuki Grand Vitara, Suzuki Vitara | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Suzuki Baleno 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 | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 44 cm longer than the Suzuki Baleno, 10 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 375 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1800 litres | no data | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage capacity. Opel Omega has 165 litres more trunk space than the Suzuki Baleno. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 1.2 metres more than that of the Suzuki Baleno, which means Opel Omega can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`010 kg | 1`200 kg | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | high | |
| Suzuki Baleno has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 85 percent more cases than Suzuki Baleno, so Suzuki Baleno quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Suzuki Baleno has
| |