Opel Omega 1990 vs Mazda 626 1990
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.6 Petrol | 2.2 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 178 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
| Opel Omega engine produces 34 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 42 NM more than Mazda 626. Despite the higher power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.7 | 8.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.2 l/100km | 8.6 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 2.5 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 375 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 3.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 650 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 570 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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. | |||
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): | 2`080 | 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
| |