Opel Omega 1997 vs Ford Mondeo 1996
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 227 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 11 seconds | |
| Opel Omega and Ford Mondeo have the same engine power, but Opel Omega torque is 7 NM more than Ford Mondeo. Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.7 | 10.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.7 l/100km | 10.7 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Mondeo 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 Ford Mondeo, 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 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 640 km in combined cycle | 600 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 800 km on highway | ||
| 640 km with real consumption | 570 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: | 560'000 km | 420'000 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: | 6 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Vectra, Opel Calibra | Used also on Ford Cougar | |
| 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`280 kg | no data | |
| 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
| |