Opel Omega 1999 vs Chrysler 300M 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Petrol | 3.5 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 144 HP | 254 HP | |
| Torque: | 203 NM | 340 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 8.8 seconds | |
|
Chrysler 300M is a more dynamic driving. Opel Omega engine produces 110 HP less power than Chrysler 300M, whereas torque is 137 NM less than Chrysler 300M. Due to the lower power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 1.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.6 | 10.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.6 l/100km | 11.3 l/100km | |
|
The Opel Omega is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler 300M, which means that by driving the Opel Omega over 15,000 km in a year you can save 165 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler 300M. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 590 km in combined cycle | |
| 1050 km on highway | 750 km on highway | ||
| 780 km with real consumption | 560 km with real consumption | ||
| Opel Omega gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Chrysler 300M) 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: | 4.90 m | 5.00 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.92 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Opel Omega is smaller, but slightly higher. Opel Omega is 10 cm shorter than the Chrysler 300M, 14 cm narrower, while the height of Opel Omega is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 530 litres | 530 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | 530 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 11.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.5 metres less than that of the Chrysler 300M, which means Opel Omega can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`080 | 2`120 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Chrysler 300M has
| |