Opel Omega 1994 vs Volkswagen Passat 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 185 NM | 168 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 11 seconds | |
| Opel Omega engine produces 11 HP more power than Volkswagen Passat, whereas torque is 17 NM more than Volkswagen Passat. Despite the higher power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 8.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.4 l/100km | 9.2 l/100km | |
|
By specification Opel Omega consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Passat, which means that by driving the Opel Omega over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Opel Omega consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Passat. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 860 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| 1020 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 790 km with real consumption | 670 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 (Volkswagen Passat) 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 | 440'000 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 | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Opel Astra, Opel Vectra, Opel Calibra | Used only for this car | |
| 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 | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.50 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 15 cm longer than the Volkswagen Passat, 5 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1800 litres | no data | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage capacity. Opel Omega has 45 litres more trunk space than the Volkswagen Passat. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`125 | 1`920 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Volkswagen Passat has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Opel Omega, so Volkswagen Passat quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
| |