Opel Omega 1994 vs Volvo 850 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 130 HP | 140 HP | |
| Torque: | 250 NM | 290 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Volvo 850 is a more dynamic driving. Opel Omega engine produces 10 HP less power than Volvo 850, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Volvo 850. Due to the lower power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 2.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.4 | 6.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.3 l/100km | 6.6 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo 850 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 850, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo 850. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 73 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1010 km in combined cycle | 1100 km in combined cycle | |
| 1220 km on highway | 1400 km on highway | ||
| 900 km with real consumption | 1100 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo 850 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.79 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.41 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 12 cm longer than the Volvo 850, 3 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 530 litres | 445 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | no data | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage capacity. Opel Omega has 85 litres more trunk space than the Volvo 850. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.4 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`170 | 1`960 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | below average | |
| Volvo 850 has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Volvo 850, so Volvo 850 quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Volvo 850 has
| |