Chrysler 300M 1998 vs Rover 75 1999
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.5 Petrol | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Chrysler 300M) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Rover 75) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 254 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 260 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.8 seconds | 11.7 seconds | |
|
Chrysler 300M is more dynamic to drive. Chrysler 300M engine produces 138 HP more power than Rover 75, whereas torque is 80 NM more than Rover 75. Thanks to more power Chrysler 300M reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.7 | 5.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.3 l/100km | 6.3 l/100km | |
|
The Rover 75 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Chrysler 300M consumes 4.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Rover 75, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Chrysler 300M could require 735 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Chrysler 300M consumes 5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Rover 75. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 590 km in combined cycle | 1120 km in combined cycle | |
| 750 km on highway | 1380 km on highway | ||
| 560 km with real consumption | 1030 km with real consumption | ||
| Rover 75 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.00 m | 4.75 m | |
| Width: | 1.92 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Chrysler 300M is larger, but slightly lower. Chrysler 300M is 25 cm longer than the Rover 75, 14 cm wider, while the height of Chrysler 300M is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 530 litres | 432 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
530 litres | 432 litres | |
|
Chrysler 300M has more luggage capacity. Chrysler 300M has 98 litres more trunk space than the Rover 75. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chrysler 300M (by 98 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.5 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Chrysler 300M is 0.1 metres more than that of the Rover 75. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`120 kg | 2`030 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1400 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler 300M has
|
Rover 75 has
| |