Opel Omega 1994 vs Volvo 850 1993
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 227 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Opel Omega is more dynamic to drive. Opel Omega and Volvo 850 have the same engine power, but Opel Omega torque is 7 NM more than Volvo 850. Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.3 | 9.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.2 l/100km | 10.0 l/100km | |
|
By specification Opel Omega consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 850, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 30 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 850. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 73 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 800 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| 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 (Volvo 850) 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 | 560'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Vectra, Opel Calibra | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S70 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.82 m | 4.71 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 11 cm longer than the Volvo 850, 3 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 420 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1800 litres | 1580 litres | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage capacity. Opel Omega has 120 litres more trunk space than the Volvo 850. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Opel Omega (by 220 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.8 metres more than that of the Volvo 850, which means Opel Omega can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`280 kg | 1`970 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`645 kg | 1`423 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 635 kg | 547 kg | |
| Opel Omega load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 14 procentiem more than Volvo 850. Therefore, Opel Omega is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Volvo 850 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Volvo 850, so Volvo 850 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 800 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Volvo 850 has
| |