Opel Omega 1997 vs Mazda 626 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 175 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14 seconds | 10.6 seconds | |
| Opel Omega engine produces 1 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 5 NM more than Mazda 626. Despite the higher power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 3.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.0 | 8.2 | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Opel Omega consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 270 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Mazda 626) 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 | 440'000 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: | 4 years | 20 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 626 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 | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger, but slightly lower. Opel Omega is 16 cm longer than the Mazda 626, 8 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1800 litres | 1677 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mazda 626. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`010 | 1`840 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |