Rover 200 1993 vs Peugeot 306 1999
| 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 | Manual | |
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 112 HP | |
| Torque: | 185 NM | 155 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.3 seconds | 11.6 seconds | |
|
Rover 200 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 200 engine produces 24 HP more power than Peugeot 306, whereas torque is 30 NM more than Peugeot 306. Thanks to more power Rover 200 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 8.3 | |
|
The Rover 200 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Rover 200 consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Peugeot 306, which means that by driving the Rover 200 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 75 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Rover 400 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Citroen Xsara, Citroen Xantia | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Peugeot 306 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
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`650 | 1`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 200 has
|
Peugeot 306 has
| |