Rover 200 1990 vs Peugeot 306 1999
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
Body: | Hatchback | Sedan | |
---|---|---|---|
The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
Engines: | 1.4 - 2.0 | 1.4 - 2.0 | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 75 - 200 HP | 70 - 112 HP | |
Torque: | 117 - 237 NM | 111 - 205 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.5 - 12.5 seconds | 10.3 - 17.3 seconds | |
Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.9 - 8.9 | 5.2 - 8.3 | |
Rover 200 petrol engines consumes on average 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than Peugeot 306. On average, Rover 200 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Peugeot 306. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
Length: | 4.22 m | 4.27 m | |
Width: | 1.68 m | 1.69 m | |
Height: | 1.40 m | 1.38 m | |
Both cars are similar in size. Rover 200 is 5 cm shorter than the Peugeot 306, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 200 is 2 cm higher. | |||
Trunk capacity: | 352 litres | 463 litres | |
Peugeot 306 has more luggage space. Rover 200 has 111 litres less trunk space than the Peugeot 306. | |||
Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10.9 meters | |
The turning circle of the Rover 200 is 0.7 metres less than that of the Peugeot 306, which means Rover 200 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`569 | ~ 1`538 | |
Safety: | no data | no data | |
Quality: | no data | below average | |
Average price (€): | no data | 800 | |
Pros and Cons: |
Rover 200 has
|
Peugeot 306 has
| |