Opel Omega 1994 vs Honda Accord 1995
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 185 NM | 184 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.5 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
| Opel Omega and Honda Accord have the same engine power, but Opel Omega torque is 1 NM more than Honda Accord. Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.8 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.8 l/100km | 9.1 l/100km | |
|
The Honda Accord is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Opel Omega consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord, which means that by driving the Opel Omega over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Opel Omega consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 760 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
| 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 (Honda Accord) 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 | 460'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Opel Astra, Opel Vectra, Opel Calibra | Used also on Honda CR-V | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| 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 | 4.77 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 5 cm longer than the Honda Accord, 1 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 430 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1800 litres | 739 litres | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage capacity. Opel Omega has 110 litres more trunk space than the Honda Accord. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Opel Omega (by 1061 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.1 metres less than that of the Honda Accord. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`125 | 1`880 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Honda Accord has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Honda Accord, so Honda Accord quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 600 | 3000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Honda Accord has
| |