Rover 75 2004 vs Chevrolet Epica 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 177 HP | 156 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 237 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.5 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Rover 75 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 75 engine produces 21 HP more power than Chevrolet Epica, whereas torque is 3 NM more than Chevrolet Epica. Thanks to more power Rover 75 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.5 | 9.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.6 l/100km | 9.7 l/100km | |
|
The Chevrolet Epica is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Rover 75 consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Epica, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Rover 75 could require 180 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Rover 75 consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chevrolet Epica. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 610 km in combined cycle | 670 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 950 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
| Chevrolet Epica gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 360'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Land Rover Freelander, Kia Carnival, Rover 400 | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
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`000 | 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
| |