Rover 200 1990 vs Peugeot 306 1999

Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison

 
Rover 200
1990 - 1996
Peugeot 306
1999 - 2001
Body: HatchbackSedan
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/AutomaticManual/Automatic
Engines: 1.4 - 2.01.4 - 2.0

Performance

Power: 75 - 200 HP70 - 112 HP
Torque: 117 - 237 NM111 - 205 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 6.5 - 12.5 seconds10.3 - 17.3 seconds
Select a car version for a more accurate comparison!

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 5.9 - 8.95.2 - 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 m4.27 m
Width: 1.68 m1.69 m
Height: 1.40 m1.38 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 litres463 litres
Peugeot 306 has more luggage space.
Rover 200 has 111 litres less trunk space than the Peugeot 306.
Turning diameter: 10.2 meters10.9 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 datano data
Quality: no data
below average
Average price (€): no data800
Pros and Cons: Rover 200 has
  • better manoeuvrability
Peugeot 306 has
  • lower fuel consumption
  • roomier boot
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv