Opel Omega 2001 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: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 NM | 230 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Opel Omega is more dynamic to drive. Opel Omega engine produces 40 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 70 NM more than Mazda 626. Thanks to more power Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 5.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 5.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 1.7 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 255 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 1080 km in combined cycle | |
| 1220 km on highway | 1250 km on highway | ||
| 970 km with real consumption | 1100 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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`180 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | average | |
| Opel Omega has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Mazda 626, so Opel Omega quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |