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: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 227 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
| Opel Omega engine produces 30 HP more power than Volvo S70, whereas torque is 7 NM more than Volvo S70. Despite the higher power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.7 | 9.4 | |
|
The Volvo S70 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Opel Omega consumes 2.3 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 345 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 68 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 640 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 560'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Vectra, Opel Calibra | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo S40, Volvo V50 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo S70 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Volvo S70 1999 2.4 engine: The strengths of this engine lie in its durable components, long lifespan, reliability in everyday use, and substantial power reserves.
However, there are notable weaknesses. Early models were equipped ... More about Volvo S70 1999 2.4 engine | |||
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`600 | |
| 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
| |