Opel Omega 1989 vs Honda Accord 1998
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 115 HP | 147 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 184 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.5 seconds | 10.9 seconds | |
|
Honda Accord is a more dynamic driving. Opel Omega engine produces 32 HP less power than Honda Accord, whereas torque is 14 NM less than Honda Accord. Due to the lower power, Opel Omega reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.8 | 9.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.8 l/100km | 9.5 l/100km | |
|
The Opel Omega is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Opel Omega consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord, which means that by driving the Opel Omega over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Opel Omega consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Honda Accord. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 850 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 850 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| 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 (Honda Accord) 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 | 460'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Opel Frontera, Opel Calibra | Used also on Honda CR-V | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Opel Omega engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.74 m | 4.60 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Opel Omega is larger. Opel Omega is 14 cm longer than the Honda Accord, 1 cm wider, while the height of Opel Omega is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 520 litres | 430 litres | |
|
Opel Omega has more luggage capacity. Opel Omega has 90 litres more trunk space than the Honda Accord. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Opel Omega is 0.2 metres more than that of the Honda Accord. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`890 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Honda Accord has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Opel Omega has serious deffects in 320 percent more cases than Honda Accord, so Honda Accord quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3000 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Opel Omega has
|
Honda Accord has
| |