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: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 227 NM | 178 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
|
Opel Omega is more dynamic to drive. Opel Omega engine produces 34 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 49 NM more than Mazda 626. Thanks to more power Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.9 | 8.9 | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Opel Omega consumes 2 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 300 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 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: | 560'000 km | 480'000 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: | 6 years | 17 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Vectra, Opel Calibra | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
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`170 | 1`500 | |
| 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
| |