1951 Austin A 110 vs. 2000 Opel Omega
To start off, 2000 Opel Omega is newer by 49 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1951 Austin A 110. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1951 Austin A 110 would be higher. At 5,666 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Opel Omega is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Opel Omega (305 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 175 more horse power than 1951 Austin A 110. (130 HP @ 3800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Opel Omega should accelerate faster than 1951 Austin A 110. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1951 Austin A 110 weights approximately 665 kg more than 2000 Opel Omega.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2000 Opel Omega (450 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 163 more torque (in Nm) than 1951 Austin A 110. (287 Nm @ 2200 RPM). This means 2000 Opel Omega will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1951 Austin A 110.
Compare all specifications:
| 1951 Austin A 110 | 2000 Opel Omega | |
| Make | Austin | Opel |
| Model | A 110 | Omega |
| Year Released | 1951 | 2000 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3992 cc | 5666 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 130 HP | 305 HP |
| Engine RPM | 3800 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Torque | 287 Nm | 450 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2200 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1975 kg | 1310 kg |
| Wheelbase Size | 3040 mm | 2620 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 34 L | 52 L |
