Opel Omega 1997 vs Ford Mondeo 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 131 HP | |
| Torque: | 185 NM | 176 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 10.3 seconds | |
| Opel Omega engine produces 5 HP more power than Ford Mondeo, whereas torque is 9 NM more than Ford Mondeo. Despite the higher power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.7 | 8.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Mondeo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 1020 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| 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 (Ford Mondeo) 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: | 480'000 km | 480'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Opel Astra, Opel Vectra, Opel Calibra | Used also on Ford Scorpio | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Opel Omega might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.82 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.39 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 15 cm longer than the Ford Mondeo, 4 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 11 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1800 litres | 1610 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.7 metres more than that of the Ford Mondeo, which means Opel Omega can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`125 kg | 1`955 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`515 kg | 1`373 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 610 kg | 582 kg | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | low | |
| Opel Omega has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Ford Mondeo has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Opel Omega, so Opel Omega quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Ford Mondeo has
| |