Opel Omega 1997 vs Volvo S70 1999
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Sedan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The wagon generally has more cargo space due to a larger trunk door opening, a roof that extends as far back as possible, and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into cargo space. Sedans tend to be quieter than wagons due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 131 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 290 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo S70 is a more dynamic driving. Opel Omega engine produces 9 HP less power than Volvo S70, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Volvo S70. Due to the lower power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 3.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 6.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.4 l/100km | 6.5 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo S70 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S70, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 210 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S70. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 68 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 970 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| 1170 km on highway | 1360 km on highway | ||
| 890 km with real consumption | 1040 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo S70 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volvo S70) 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.82 m | 4.72 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.39 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 10 cm longer than the Volvo S70, 3 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 11 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 470 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1800 litres | no data | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage capacity. Opel Omega has 70 litres more trunk space than the Volvo S70. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.8 metres more than that of the Volvo S70, which means Opel Omega can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`280 | 1`960 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | below average | low | |
| Opel Omega has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Volvo S70 has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Opel Omega, so Opel Omega quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Volvo S70 has
| |