Opel Omega 1997 vs Mitsubishi Galant 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 175 NM | 178 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Galant is a more dynamic driving. Opel Omega engine produces 20 HP less power than Mitsubishi Galant, whereas torque is 3 NM less than Mitsubishi Galant. Due to the lower power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.0 | 9.0 | |
|
The Mitsubishi Galant is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Opel Omega consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Galant, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 150 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 910 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 (Mitsubishi Galant) 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 | 520'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 44 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Outlander, Mitsubishi Space Wagon | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Galant might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.82 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 19 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Galant, 5 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 420 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1800 litres | 1400 litres | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage capacity. Opel Omega has 120 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Galant. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Opel Omega (by 400 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Galant. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`010 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | low | below average | |
| Mitsubishi Galant has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 25 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Galant, so Mitsubishi Galant quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Mitsubishi Galant has
| |