SEARCH:
GO

 THE OFFICIAL SITE OF THE EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME

Opel/Vauxhall Omega

Rating
Score
ADULT OCCUPANT
***
22
Front: 11
Side: 11
PEDESTRIAN
**
16
Pre 2002 rating


 
Adult occupant protection
Head: Good, Neck: Good, Chest: Adequate, Upper leg right: Good, Upper leg left: Good, Lower leg right: Adequate, Lower leg left: Marginal, Right foot: Weak, Left foot: Weak
Frontal impact driver
Head: Good, Neck: Good, Chest: Marginal, Upper leg right: Good, Upper leg left: Good, Lower leg right: Good, Lower leg left: Adequate
Frontal impact passenger
Head: Good, Chest: Weak, Abdomen: Adequate, Pelvis: Good
Side impact driver

Side impact driver with side airbag option

Child restraints
18 month old ChildNo information available
3 year old ChildNo information available
Pedestrian protection
No image car front available

Safety equipment
Front seatbelt pretensioners
Front seatbelt load limiters
Driver frontal airbag
Front passenger frontal airbag
Side body airbags
Side head airbags
Driver knee airbag
Car details
Hand of driveLHD
Tested modelOpel Omega 2.0 GL/GLS
Body type4 door saloon
Year of publication1998
Kerb weight1455

Comments
The Omega is one of the older designs of car in this group and, unlike others here, the car does not have passenger or side-impact airbags fitted as standard – they are options. The car merited three stars but this rose to four when side airbags were fitted. And although the car passes side-impact legislation taking effect from October without them, the airbags reduced chest injury risks for the driver. The car's front-impact performance was reasonable although the driver's feet and ankles risked injury. Pedestrian protection was better than for some cars here, although parts of the bonnet provided poor cushioning.

Front impact
The bodyshell remained stable, no points were lost for distortion of the passenger compartment and the driver's airbag worked well. The front belts had buckle-mounted pre-tensioners and web locks but, even so, chest loading, especially for the passenger, lowered the test score. The knee impact areas were free of hard contact points but the amount of brake pedal rearward travel put the driver's feet and ankles at risk of injury.

Side impact
The standard car (without side airbags) gains a lower score because of the loads on the driver's ribs and the consequent risk of chest injury. A stiff webbing guide and some trim clips on the door pillar could have injured the driver, while the arm-rest fitted to the door also presented a threat.

Child occupant
A European manufacturer's association-approved (ACEA) pictogram was fixed to the end of the facia so that it was visible when the door was opened. However, there was no supporting text to warn of the risks of serious injusry if a child seat were to be fitted to the front passenger seat. Both child seats were manufacturer-supplied but neither had colour coding to show the correct route for the adult belt, in accordance with regulation R44.03. What's more, instruction labels were not visible for all fixing positions, and were not colour coded. In operation the seats controlled forward head movement but did not contain the older child's head in a side impact. Impact forces acting on his chest were also higher than regulations allow.

Pedestrian
The bumper gave more protection to pedestrians than others tested, while the bonnet's leading edge was less aggressive. The adult head impact area gave poor protection and four of the six tests gave high readings, but the zone where a child's head would impact fared better.

 DISCLAIMER  CONTACT