1965 Bristol 408 vs. 2000 Opel Omega
To start off, 2000 Opel Omega is newer by 35 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Bristol 408. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Bristol 408 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 90 more horse power than 1965 Bristol 408. (215 HP @ 4400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Opel Omega should accelerate faster than 1965 Bristol 408. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1965 Bristol 408 weights approximately 275 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, 1965 Bristol 408 (464 Nm @ 2800 RPM) has 14 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Opel Omega. (450 Nm @ 4400 RPM). This means 1965 Bristol 408 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Opel Omega.
Compare all specifications:
| 1965 Bristol 408 | 2000 Opel Omega | |
| Make | Bristol | Opel |
| Model | 408 | Omega |
| Year Released | 1965 | 2000 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5130 cc | 5666 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 215 HP | 305 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4400 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Torque | 464 Nm | 450 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2800 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1585 kg | 1310 kg |
| Wheelbase Size | 2910 mm | 2620 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 81 L | 52 L |
