Opel Omega 2000 vs Volvo S80 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.5 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: | 120 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 280 NM | 290 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.5 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Volvo S80 is a more dynamic driving. Opel Omega engine produces 20 HP less power than Volvo S80, whereas torque is 10 NM less than Volvo S80. Due to the lower power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.1 | 6.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo S80 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 Volvo S80, 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 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S80. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 80 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1050 km in combined cycle | 1250 km in combined cycle | |
| 1330 km on highway | 1630 km on highway | ||
| 1050 km with real consumption | 1250 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo S80 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Volvo S80) 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: | 440'000 km | 560'000 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 Volvo S80 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Frontera, Opel Sintra | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo 850, Volvo S70 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo S80 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.90 m | 4.82 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.43 m | |
| Opel Omega is 8 cm longer than the Volvo S80, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Opel Omega is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 530 litres | 440 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | 1106 litres | |
| Opel Omega has 90 litres more trunk space than the Volvo S80. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo S80 (by 276 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`145 | 2`140 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Volvo S80 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 30 percent more cases than Volvo S80, so Volvo S80 quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Volvo S80 has
| |