Rover 200 1992 vs BMW 3 series 1994
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 103 HP | 115 HP | |
| Torque: | 127 NM | 168 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.1 seconds | 12 seconds | |
| Rover 200 engine produces 12 HP less power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 41 NM less than BMW 3 series. Despite less power, Rover 200 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.1 | 8.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.7 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Rover 200 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Rover 200 consumes 1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that by driving the Rover 200 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 150 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Rover 200 consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 710 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Rover 200) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW 3 series) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.22 m | 4.43 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.35 m | |
|
Rover 200 is smaller, but slightly higher. Rover 200 is 21 cm shorter than the BMW 3 series, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 200 is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 300 litres | 230 litres | |
|
Rover 200 has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Rover 200 has 70 litres more trunk space than the BMW 3 series. The BMW 3 series may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 200 is 0.2 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`550 | 1`770 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 6600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 200 has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |