Volvo 850 1992 vs Opel Omega 1994
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 185 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | 11 seconds | |
|
Volvo 850 is more dynamic to drive. Volvo 850 engine produces 34 HP more power than Opel Omega, whereas torque is 35 NM more than Opel Omega. Thanks to more power Volvo 850 reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 8.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.7 l/100km | 9.4 l/100km | |
|
The Opel Omega is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo 850 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Volvo 850 could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo 850 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Opel Omega. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 73 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 790 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 750 km with real consumption | 790 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: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| 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: | 560'000 km | 480'000 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: | 8 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S70 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Opel Astra, Opel Vectra, Opel Calibra | |
| 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: | 4.66 m | 4.79 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Volvo 850 is smaller. Volvo 850 is 13 cm shorter than the Opel Omega, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Volvo 850 is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 530 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 830 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo 850 is 0.8 metres less than that of the Opel Omega, which means Volvo 850 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`600 | 2`010 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | below 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 (€): | 1200 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo 850 has
|
Opel Omega has
| |