Rover 75 2004 vs Chevrolet Epica 2006
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.8 - 4.6 | 2.0 - 2.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 - 260 HP | 141 - 156 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 - 410 NM | 195 - 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.2 - 13.2 seconds | 9.7 - 10.1 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.8 - 13.4 | 6.1 - 9.3 | |
|
Rover 75 petrol engines consumes on average 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than Chevrolet Epica. On average, Rover 75 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Epica. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.75 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Rover 75 is smaller. Rover 75 is 5 cm shorter than the Chevrolet Epica, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 75 is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 432 litres | 480 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
432 litres | no data | |
|
Chevrolet Epica has more luggage space. Rover 75 has 48 litres less trunk space than the Chevrolet Epica. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 75 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Chevrolet Epica, which means Rover 75 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`003 | ~ 1`985 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 2400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 75 has
|
Chevrolet Epica has
| |