Opel Omega 1994 vs Honda Accord 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.2 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Opel Omega) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Honda Accord) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 198 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13 seconds | 8.9 seconds | |
|
Honda Accord is a more dynamic driving. Opel Omega engine produces 20 HP less power than Honda Accord, but torque is 52 NM more than Honda Accord. Due to the lower power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 4.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 9.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.3 l/100km | 9.4 l/100km | |
|
The Opel Omega is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 1.4 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 210 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 970 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km with real consumption | 690 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 (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. | |||
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, if possible |
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: | 2`280 kg | 1`880 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`665 kg | 1`385 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 615 kg | 495 kg | |
| Opel Omega load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 20 procentiem more than Honda Accord. Therefore, Opel Omega is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| 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 (€): | 800 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Honda Accord has
| |