Opel Omega 1999 vs Mazda 626 1999
| Body: | Sedan | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| 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: | 100 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 205 NM | 230 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Mazda 626 is a more dynamic driving. Opel Omega engine produces 10 HP less power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 25 NM less than Mazda 626. Due to the lower power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 5.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 0.7 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 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 2.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1130 km in combined cycle | 1080 km in combined cycle | |
| 1470 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 930 km with real consumption | 1100 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 (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: | 460'000 km | 380'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Opel Omega engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 3 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Opel Vectra | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 626 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Mazda 626 1999 2.0 engine: The engine is reliable if you use quality diesel. Turbine life is not very long, however. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.90 m | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 31 cm longer than the Mazda 626, 7 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 530 litres | 502 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | no data | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage capacity. Opel Omega has 28 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mazda 626, which means Opel Omega can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`090 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Mazda 626 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Mazda 626, so Mazda 626 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |