1996 • Opel
Campo
Opel Campo 2.5 DTI (100 Hp) 1996Overall Score48.5/100
1996 Opel Campo vs 1996 Nissan Cedric Comparison
Compare technical specifications, scores and everyday-use differences side by side.
1996 • Nissan
Cedric
Nissan Cedric 2.8d (100 Hp) 1996Overall Score49.25/100
WINNER
Nissan Cedric
Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 0.75 points.
48.5–49.25
SPECIFICATION GROUPS
Every difference between the two cars
Basic Specifications
Opel CampoSpecificationNissan Cedric
OpelMakeNissan
CampoModelCedric
1996Model year1996
Pick-upBody typeSedan
5Seats5
4Doors4
Performance
Opel CampoSpecificationNissan Cedric
18,3 s0–100 km/h17,3 s
140 km/hTop speed163 km/h
2499 ccEngine displacement2825 cc
100 HPPower100 HP
226 NmTorque178 Nm
4Cylinders6
Fuel & Consumption
Opel CampoSpecificationNissan Cedric
DieselFuel typeDiesel
0 ltFuel tank80 lt
8,1 ltAverage consumption12,9 lt
Transmission & Chassis
Opel CampoSpecificationNissan Cedric
Rear-wheel driveDrivetrainRear-wheel drive
5Gears4
—Tyre size205/65 R15
Dimensions
Opel CampoSpecificationNissan Cedric
4980 mmLength—
1690 mmWidth—
1710 mmHeight—
—Weight1560 Kg
3025 mmWheelbase—
E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note
1996 Opel Campo and 1996 Nissan Cedric 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.
VS
VS
VSComments are loading…