Opel Omega 1989 vs Rover 400 1992
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 185 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.5 seconds | 8.4 seconds | |
|
Rover 400 is a more dynamic driving. Opel Omega engine produces 21 HP less power than Rover 400, whereas torque is 15 NM less than Rover 400. Due to the lower power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 4.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.8 | 8.2 | |
|
The Rover 400 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Opel Omega consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Rover 400, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Opel Omega could require 90 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 670 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 (Rover 400) 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 | 420'000 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: | 10 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Frontera, Opel Calibra | Used also on Rover 200 | |
| 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: | 4.74 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.40 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 37 cm longer than the Rover 400, 8 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 520 litres | 410 litres | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage capacity. Opel Omega has 110 litres more trunk space than the Rover 400. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.7 metres more than that of the Rover 400, which means Opel Omega can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`600 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 3000 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Rover 400 has
| |