Opel Omega 1994 vs Volvo 850 1992
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 185 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Volvo 850 is a more dynamic driving. Opel Omega engine produces 34 HP less power than Volvo 850, whereas torque is 35 NM less than Volvo 850. Due to the lower power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 9.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.4 l/100km | 9.7 l/100km | |
|
The Opel Omega is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 850, which means that by driving the Opel Omega over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 850. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 73 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 790 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
| Opel Omega 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 (Volvo 850) 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: | 480'000 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 850 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Opel Astra, Opel Vectra, Opel Calibra | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S70 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Opel Omega might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.79 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.40 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 13 cm longer than the Volvo 850, 3 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 530 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.8 metres more than that of the Volvo 850, which means Opel Omega can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`010 | 1`600 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Volvo 850 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Volvo 850, so Volvo 850 quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Volvo 850 has
| |