Opel Omega 1989 vs Mazda 626 1990
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 195 NM | 178 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
| Opel Omega engine produces 9 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 17 NM more than Mazda 626. Despite the higher power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.6 | 8.2 | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Opel Omega consumes 1.4 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 210 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
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 | 560'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Opel Frontera | 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: | 4.77 m | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.77 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.48 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 18 cm longer than the Mazda 626, 8 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 520 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1855 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.1 metres more than that of the Mazda 626. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`950 | 1`250 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | above average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 50 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3000 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |