Rover 100 1990 vs Volkswagen Polo 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.1 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 45 HP | |
| Torque: | 90 NM | 76 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.8 seconds | 21.4 seconds | |
|
Rover 100 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 100 engine produces 15 HP more power than Volkswagen Polo, whereas torque is 14 NM more than Volkswagen Polo. Thanks to more power Rover 100 reaches 100 km/h speed 6.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 | 6.6 | |
|
The Rover 100 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Rover 100 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo, which means that by driving the Rover 100 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 35 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 590 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| Volkswagen Polo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.52 m | 3.72 m | |
| Width: | 1.56 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.38 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Rover 100 is smaller. Rover 100 is 20 cm shorter than the Volkswagen Polo, 10 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 100 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 229 litres | 245 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
552 litres | 975 litres | |
| Rover 100 has 16 litres less trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volkswagen Polo (by 423 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.8 meters | 10.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 100 is 0.3 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`290 | 1`375 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 100 has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |