Opel Omega 1994 vs Chrysler Concorde 1993
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Petrol | 3.3 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 211 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 245 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Opel Omega engine produces 48 HP more power than Chrysler Concorde, whereas torque is 25 NM more than Chrysler Concorde. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.7 | 10.3 | |
|
The Opel Omega is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Opel Omega consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler Concorde, which means that by driving the Opel Omega over 15,000 km in a year you can save 90 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 66 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 640 km in combined cycle | |
| 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 Concorde) 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: | 530'000 km | 560'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Opel Sintra | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Chrysler Grand Voyager, Chrysler Voyager, Dodge Grand Caravan | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Chrysler Concorde might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.79 m | 5.15 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.46 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Opel Omega is smaller, but slightly higher. Opel Omega is 36 cm shorter than the Chrysler Concorde, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Opel Omega is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 530 litres | 473 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
830 litres | no data | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Opel Omega has 57 litres more trunk space than the Chrysler Concorde. The Chrysler Concorde may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`170 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Chrysler Concorde has
| |