Rover 75 2001 vs Volvo V70 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 177 HP | 210 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.2 seconds | 7.8 seconds | |
|
Volvo V70 is a more dynamic driving. Rover 75 engine produces 33 HP less power than Volvo V70, whereas torque is 80 NM less than Volvo V70. Due to the lower power, Rover 75 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.6 | 10.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.1 l/100km | 10.0 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo V70 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Rover 75 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V70, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Rover 75 could require 15 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Rover 75 consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo V70. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 80 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 610 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 580 km with real consumption | 800 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo V70 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volvo V70 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Land Rover Freelander, Kia Carnival, Rover 400 | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC90, Volvo XC70 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo V70 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Rover 75 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.79 m | 4.71 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.49 m | |
| Rover 75 is 8 cm longer than the Volvo V70, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 75 is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 400 litres | 485 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1222 litres | 1641 litres | |
|
Volvo V70 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Rover 75 has 85 litres less trunk space than the Volvo V70. This could mean that the Rover 75 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo V70 (by 419 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 75 is 0.5 metres more than that of the Volvo V70, which means Rover 75 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`050 | 2`100 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Volvo V70 has
| |