DETAILED CAR COMPARISON

2000 Nissan Cedric vs 2000 Opel Campo Comparison

Compare technical specifications, scores and everyday-use differences side by side.

VS
WINNER

Nissan Cedric

Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 0.75 points.

50.25–49.5
SPECIFICATION GROUPS

Every difference between the two cars

Basic Specifications

NissanMakeOpel
CedricModelCampo
2000Model year2000
SedanBody typePick-up
5Seats5
4Doors4

Performance

16,8 s0–100 km/h18,3 s
163 km/hTop speed140 km/h
2825 ccEngine displacement2499 cc
100 HPPower100 HP
178 NmTorque226 Nm
6Cylinders4

Fuel & Consumption

DieselFuel typeDiesel
72 ltFuel tank0 lt
9,8 ltUrban consumption—
7,2 ltExtra-urban consumption—
9,5 ltAverage consumption8,1 lt

Transmission & Chassis

Rear-wheel driveDrivetrainRear-wheel drive
4Gears5
195/70 R14Tyre size—

Dimensions

4690 mmLength4980 mm
1690 mmWidth1690 mm
1425 mmHeight1710 mm
1510 KgWeight—
2735 mmWheelbase3025 mm

E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note

2000 Nissan Cedric and 2000 Opel Campo approach the same decision from different angles. We compare the exact versions so changes in engine, transmission, dimensions and equipment are not hidden behind the model names.

Overall, Nissan Cedric leads the E-Kıyasla score by 0.75 points. The score provides a consistent summary, while the best choice can still change with priorities such as urban efficiency, luggage space, performance or equipment.

SIMILAR COMPARISONS

Similar comparisons

Explore related comparisons featuring cars from this matchup.

Comments are loading…