Opel Omega 1995 vs Mazda 626 1992
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 175 NM | 153 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
| Opel Omega engine produces 26 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 22 NM more than Mazda 626. Despite the higher power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 8.3 | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Opel Omega consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 135 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 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 (Mazda 626) 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: | 4 years | 20 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 626 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Opel Omega engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.82 m | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 23 cm longer than the Mazda 626, 10 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1800 litres | 1315 litres | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage capacity. Opel Omega has 110 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 626. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Opel Omega (by 485 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mazda 626. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`010 | 1`760 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |