2000 Opel Omega vs. 2010 Holden Commodore
To start off, 2010 Holden Commodore is newer by 10 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Opel Omega. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Opel Omega would be higher. At 2,564 cc (6 cylinders), 2010 Holden Commodore is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Holden Commodore (240 HP) has 98 more horse power than 2000 Opel Omega. (142 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Holden Commodore should accelerate faster 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, 2010 Holden Commodore (240 Nm) has 30 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Opel Omega. (210 Nm). This means 2010 Holden Commodore will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Opel Omega.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Opel Omega | 2010 Holden Commodore | |
| Make | Opel | Holden |
| Model | Omega | Commodore |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2198 cc | 2564 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 142 HP | 240 HP |
| Torque | 210 Nm | 240 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 7.8 L/100km | 10.9 L/100km |
